jpc aba546-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL PPLICATION NO. 546 OF 2011 Jagannath Keshav Bhagat ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. Naveen Chomal for the Applicant Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 24th June, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Chomal, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Newton, the learned APP for the State. 2. One Mr. Snil Chavan had made a complaint to the Municipal Corporation, Bhiwandi regarding unauthorized constructions, allegedly carried out by one Mr. Shakil Umar Pathan. His grievance is that the Corporation did not take steps in the matter and even did not make any correspondence with him in that regard. Therefore, the said Mr. Sunil Chavan sought some information under the Right to information Act, but, the information was not provided. He, therefore, approached the Appellate Authority under the said Act. The Appellate Authority jpc aba546-11.sxw 2 directed the present applicant, who is a Ward Officer in Bhiwandi Municipal Corporation, to give the requisite information to Mr.Sunil Chavan within seven days. However, the information, which was actually received by Mr. Sunil Chavan, according to him, was incomplete. He, therefore filed the Second Appeal under the the said Act. It is thereafter, that certain directions were given to the Municipal Commissioner, who held a meeting in his chamber on 5/.11/2009. At that time, the Commissioner showed to Mr. Sunil Chavan, a letter dated 11/9/2009, purporting to have been signed by Mr Sunil Chavan, stating therein that all his complaints in the matter had been withdrawn by him. Mr. Sunil Chavan realised that, though the signature on the said document, which was a xerox copy, was his; the matter contained therein had not been written by him. He, therefore, called for the original of the said document, but, there was no such original . Mr. Chavan then lodged a report with the Police Station on 19/5/2011, stating that an offences of forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, etc., were committed and he mentioned that he was suspecting the present applicant for those offences. 3. A reading of the F.I.R. shows that the First Informant has given certain reasons for claiming the document in question to be a forged jpc aba546-11.sxw 3 document. He has also given reasons for suspecting the applicant as one of the offenders in the case. 4. A prima facie case exists against the applicant. Since the offence is apparently committed by some persons, working with the Municipal Corporation, and since the object of the offence seems to be to give protection to the alleged unauthorised constructions, the matter requires to be thoroughly investigated into. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, granting anticipatory bail to the applicant would affect the normal and natural course of investigation. 5. This is not a fit case where an anticipatory bail would be granted. 6. The Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)