1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 310 OF 2010 Chanchal Narayandas Lohia .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya i/b Law Juris for the applicant. Mr. S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No. 146 of 2009 registered on 10th August 2009 at Jogeshwari Police Station, Mumbai, for an alleged offence punishable under sections 406, 408, 465, 467, 2 468 and 471 of the I.P.C.. 2. The prosecution case in short is that one Navinkumar Madanlal Vij committed a theft of a cheque book (cheques) of his employer, viz. Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Vij with the help of his friend Avi Jain obtained particulars/number of savings bank account of the applicant maintained at Calcutta Branch of ICICI Bank. Mr. Vij then deposited the cheque at Andheri Branch of ICICI Bank to the credit of the savings account of the applicant. The credit was given to the applicant’s account at Calcutta Branch. According to the prosecution, Avi Jain in connivance with the present applicant withdrew the amount so credited to the applicant’s account at the Calcutta Branch. On receipt of a complaint by Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd., a F.I.R. was registered. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the crime. 3. Admittedly, on 12th March 2009 when the 3 cheque was deposited at the Andheri Branch, the applicant was not in Andheri, Mumbai, but was at Calcutta. He has not deposited the cheque in his account. It is not shown that the applicant had any control over who deposits cheques or money in his account. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the money deposited but the money is alleged to have been withdrawn by Avi Jain through the applicant. 4. The applicant is in custody since 14th January 2010, i.e. for a period of over one month. The applicant is a student aged 23 years. Taking all these facts into consideration, in my view, the applicant can be granted bail. 5. Before I part, I must note a disturbing feature which has come to light. A written complaint was lodged by Suvidha Infoserve Pvt. Ltd. with the Jogeshwari Police Station on 3rd July 2009. A station diary entry no.24/2009 was also made on 3rd July 2009 about the 4 receipt of the written complaint. The complaint undoubtedly disclosed commission of a cognizable offence at least by Mr. Navinkumar Vij. Yet no investigation was carried out till 10th August 2009. In fact, even F.I.R. was not registered till 10th August 2009. F.I.R./Crime No.146 of 2009 was registered only on 10th August 2009. On the last date the matter was adjourned and the learned A.P.P. was asked to explain the delay in recording of the F.I.R. The investigating officer, who was in charge of the Jogeshwari Police Station between 3rd July 2009 and 10th August 2009, was directed to remain present in the Court. Today, the learned A.P.P., on instructions of the investigating officer, states that he cannot attribute any reason for the delay in recording of the F.I.R. except that there was shortage of the police force. On inquiry, he further stated that at the relevant time the Jogeshwari Police Station was manned by one Senior Inspector, 4 Police Inspectors, 3 Assistant Police Inspectors, 4 Police Sub- 5 Inspectors and 5 Assistant Police Sub- Inspectors. Thus, there were at least 17 officers manning the police station. The explanation that on account of shortage of police officers the FIR could not be recordedf or over 38 days (3rd July to 10th August) does not prima facie appear to be correct. In any event, this is a matter for the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to investigate and take appropriate action. Accordingly, I direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X to make appropriate inquiry why, despite receipt of written information about commission of a cognizable offence on 3rd July 2009, the F.I.R./crime was not recorded till 10th August 2009 and to take appropriate action. Action taken be reported to this Court on or before 9th March 2010. Place the matter on board for further orders on receipt of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. 6. In the meanwhile, the order of bail 6 cannot be withheld for this inquiry. I direct that the applicant be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 146 of 2009 registered at Jogeshwari Police Station on his executing a personal bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount or cash security in lieu of surety subject to a condition that the applicant shall, within 48 hours of his release, inform to the police his present residential address residential as well as mobile telephone numbers where he can be contacted and shall inform any change in address or telephone number within 48 hours such change. Breach of the condition would result in cancellation of bail forthwith. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)