..(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.2512 OF 2008 Shekhar Bandopant Ghugare. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Niteen Pradhan, Adv. i/b. Smt.Shubhada D.Khot, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 28th July, 2008. DATED : 28th July, 2008. DATED : 28th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.170 of 2008 of Karad City police station, Karad. The said case is under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC. 3. The applicant at one point of time was the Trustee of Kolhapur Zilla Khadi Gramodyog Sangha which is registered as Public Trust. The applicant met the complainant and represented to him that some land of the Trust is to be sold. He ..(2).. further told him that the land belonged to Kolhapur Zilla Khadi Gramodyog Sangha, hence amount is required to be paid to the Trustees and on that pretext the applicant obtained Rs.7 lakh in cash from the complainant. Thereafter, the applicant told the complainant that Rs.15 lakh is required to be paid to the Trustees and the Directors of the Trust and thereafter resolution for sale would be passed. Thus the applicant took cheque of Rs.15 lakhs from the complainant. The applicant also entered into an agreement with the complainant in respect of the sale of the said land. 4. It is seen that the applicant had no authority to enter into any such transaction in respect of the property of Kolhapur Zilla Khadi Gramodyog Sangha. The applicant has admitted that he received cheques in the amount of Rs.15 lakh from the complainant. However, it is his case that he has not encashed the cheques. Looking to the material on record, it is seen that the applicant has entered into a transaction, which he had no authority to do so and by entering into such a transaction he took Rs.7 lakh in cash from ..(3).. the complainant and Rs.15 lakhs by way of cheque. It is necessary to recover the said amount of Rs.7 lakh. Looking to the facts of the case, the custody of the applicant would be very much necessary. 5. In my view, the material collected by the prosecution in the present case is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the present applicant. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, P.V.Prabhakar Rao, P.V.Prabhakar Rao, reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 6. On request of the learned Counsel for the applicant, applicant is granted time to surrender upto 13th August, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)