CAST 2129 & CA 1672 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION St. NO. 2129 OF 2011 Shaikh Ayyazbhai s/o. Shaikh Abdul Salam, R/o. Islampura, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. M.A. Tandale, Advocate for applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for State/respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION St. NO. 1672 OF 2011 Maruti s/o. Dattaram Burkule, R/o. Janardhan Nagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for State/respondent. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 9th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Both applications are filed under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No. 81/2011 registered in Shrirampur City Police CAST 2129 & CA 1672 of 2011 2 Station, District Ahmednagar for offences punishable under sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The APP is present with papers and he has shown the papers of investigation. Both the sides are heard. 2. The report is given in respect of creation of false record in R.T.O. office in respect of a vehicle, truck. One truck was registered as GT-09/BT-8753 in the office of R.T.O. at Ahmadabad, Gujarat and it had chassis No.444026OSZ92ZTEC. This truck was then registered with R.T.O. Office at Nanded with different number. This truck was stolen from Ahmadabad. False owner was shown and the application was moved for transfer of registration to Nanded office. Then the same thing was done for creating false record in R.T.O. Office at Shrirampur. The papers produced include remand report. Remand report shows that the name of the applicant from the first proceedings transpired during investigation and according to the investigating agency, he is involved in creation of false record in respect of stolen vehicle. Applicant from the second proceedings is working as Head Clear in the R.T.O. Office at Nanded. Allegations are made against him that he helped the persons involved in creating the record by transferring the vehicle in the record of R.T.O. Office, Nanded. 3. The statements made before this Court show that the relevant CAST 2129 & CA 1672 of 2011 3 record which is required to be produced with the application to transfer the vehicle is not available and the form Nos. 20, 21, 22 are missing. The advocate for the applicant from the second proceedings submitted that the hand writing on the relevant record and registers is of other clerks and the names of these clerks are given. One clerk retired due to superannuation and anticipatory bail is refused to him by this Court. Some record is produced to show that on 20 and 21 of that month present applicant was on casual leave. However record shows that transfer was effected on 19 and not on 20 or 21 of that month. The advocate of the applicant from the second proceeding submitted that it was not the duty of this applicant to make entries. However, the application shows that he was working as Head Clerk and he was expected to supervise the things. If there was no previous record in respect of the registration of vehicle of Gujrat, it was his duty to see that initially record was produced. That relevant record is missing and it needs to be presumed that he was custodian of that record. In these circumstances, the custodial interrogation of this applicant is required. The name of other applicant transpired during investigation as he is involved in creation of false record. 4. Such instances in R.T.O. offices are increasing day by day. Without the help of employees of R.T.O. office, such incidents cannot take place. In the present case attempt was made to erase the chassis number of the CAST 2129 & CA 1672 of 2011 4 vehicle and laboratory has given certificate that chassis number of vehicle was registered in Gujrat. It was submitted that it is the duty of the vehicle inspector to verify the chassis number and so the blame should go to the vehicle inspector. The investigating agency needs to find out as to who is responsible for such a thing and they can go to vehicle inspector also. There must be a racket and police must find out as to who were involved in creation of such record and also helping the persons who got the vehicle registered in Nanded office and another office. In view of these circumstances, it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail and both applications stand rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criaplnst2129,1672/11