(1) CR.APP. 1582.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1582 OF 2009 Pathan Akramkhan Abdul Majidkhan, Age : 22 years, Occu.: Education and Journalist, R/o Lane No.1, Near Ambedkar Statue, Naregaon (MIDC), Aurangabad .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Badnapur, Dist. Jalna (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. V.M. Humbe, Advocate for the Applicant Smt. S.B. Wadmare, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The applicant sought quashing of the FIR in case no. 868 of 2009. The applicant’s earlier application seeking quashing of the FIR got (2) CR.APP. 1582.2009 dismissed on merits vide my order dated 16.4.2009. I even refused him anticipatory bail. Despite the order passed on 16.4.2009, the applicant again moved an application for anticipatory bail before the lower Court. That was also rejected. 2] The applicant is again before this Court for anticipatory bail. Despite of rejection of his applications, the applicant was not arrested by the concerned Police. The applicant’s counsel informs me that the applicant was co-operating with the Police and was attending the Police Station for the purpose of investigation. On the other hand, the Police made a report saying that the applicant had come to the Police Station, but instead of meeting the Investigation Officer, he met the Officers of lower grade and obtained their acknowledgment on his application. 3] The question is whether the applicant deserves anticipatory bail in this case? During the investigation of this case, it was revealed that the (3) CR.APP. 1582.2009 applicant forged the questioned hall-ticket and such forged hall-ticket was utilised by one accused for writing examination papers as proxy of the other accused. The present applicant also made a complaint against the complainant who happens to be the head-master of the school and alleged that the complainant was indulging in malpractice at the examination hall. The applicant is trying to act ‘smart’. It is also seen that he is the mastermind behind the incident. 4] The applicant does not deserve anticipatory bail. The application stands rejected. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/25june9/cr1582.09