..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2454 OF 2008 Mr.Prakashchandra Ambika Rai. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.R.L.Patil,Sr.Advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. Mr.S.R.Chitnis, Adv. for orig.complainant. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 1st August, 2008. DATED : 1st August, 2008. DATED : 1st August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Counsel for orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-79 of 2008 of Boisar police station, Thane. The said case is under Sections 407, 408 of IPC. 3. The applicant is a transporter. He used to transport furnace oil to the factory of the complainant. It was found that the furnace oil ..(2).. was mixed with water. The statement of witness Naring shows that when furnace oil was transported by the tanker of the applicant, on many occasions, the applicant and his son used to take out thousands of litres of furnace oil from the said tanker and thereafter the tanker was sent to the company of the complainant. The statement of witness Jitendra shows that one such incident occurred on 31.1.2007. On 31.1.2007, when the boiler in the company of the complainant was started, the boiler suddenly stopped working. Hence they opened the boiler and checked the oil. They found that there was 4500 litres of water mixed in the oil. Hence the complainant was called and he was shown the said water in the furnace oil. The applicant at that time stated that money may be cut from his transport bill hence about Rs.63000/- came to be cut from the transport bill. 4. The statement of Narsing shows that this is not an isolated incident and on many occasions the applicant stopped the tanker, removed thousands of litres of furnace oil from the tanker and thereafter the tanker was sent to the company of ..(3).. the complainant. Looking to the above facts, in my opinion the custody of the applicant would be necessary to find out the nature and extent of the racket and to find out whoelse is involved in the said racket. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 5. On request of the learned Counsel for the applicant, applicant is granted time to surrender upto 9th August, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)