1 ABA 33-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2011 Arun Pandurang Gulgule ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. LAW GLOBAL, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent  State Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr.Prakash Naik, for the original Complainant CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. . Not on board. 2. Mentioned. 3. Taken on board. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2 ABA 33-2011 5. This is an application for anticipatory bail by a Town Planner, who apprehends arrest in connection with C.R.No.I-267 of 2010 registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station. Initially, the report in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 387 & 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was received against Dilip Ramrakhyani, Ajju Ramrakhyani, Mannu Jogda, Prakash Rochlani & Jitu Makhija. The applicants' name did not figure in this report. This report was received on 27th November, 2010. The allegation was that on 16th July, 2010, these Ramrakhyanis had demanded a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the first informant for being allowed to raise construction on his property, since the father of those Ramrakhyanis was a local Municipal Corporator. Thereafter, Ramrakhyanis asked the first informant to raise an unauthorized 5th floor which the first informant did not want to do. Therefore, they started 3 ABA 33-2011 obstructions in the construction. On 15th October, 2010, the State Government transferred the applicant from Ulhasnagar to Gondiya. The order stipulated that the Town Planners were to hand over the charge on 21st October, 2010 & were to take charge on 22nd October, 2010 at the respective postings by curtailing joining time. Another order was passed on the same date directing that the controlling officers should relieve officers under transfers and should not grant any leave to such officers. However, the applicant did apply for Earned Leave on medical grounds from 19th October, 2010 to 4th November, 2010. On 19th October, 2010, Prakash Rochlani one of the accused named in the F.I.R. filed two applications for being permitted to repair a compound wall and gate on the property bearing U.Nos.64 & 80, Sheet No.46. Both these applications were identically worded. The Junior Engineer of Town Planning Department of Ulhasnagar Municipality made a note on 20th 4 ABA 33-2011 October, 2010 stating that the repairs for which a permission was sought were necessary & therefore, he had placed before the Town Planner letters granting permission for signatures. This note bears signature of Town Planner  applicant without any date. The letters by which permission was granted are, however, dated 1st November, 2010 with signatures of the applicant on the letters which do not bear any date. 6. In these circumstances, the investigating officer seems to have come to the conclusion that the applicant had engaged in conspiracy ( the word used laxuer d#u ) with Ramrakhyanis & Rochalani for granting permission for a non-existing compound wall and gate when he was either on leave or had no business to grant such permission being under orders of transfers. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant 5 ABA 33-2011 first submitted that the applicant was not on leave though he had applied for leave, since leave could not have been granted under the orders of the Government. He next submits that whether he granted any permission during the leave period or breached any Government orders cannot be subject matter of Criminal investigation and if the applicant has committed any departmental delinquency that could be decided departmentally. The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that there cannot be any allegation of forgery, since applicant had signed the letters dated 1st November, 2010 himself and it is nobody's case that he has signed as someone else. Therefore, according to him, there could be no forgery or any offence which would require presence in the custody. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the Judgments in C.O.Verghese Versus M.K.Singhi & another, reported at 1997(2)Bom.C.R.519 & MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND 6 ABA 33-2011 ANOTHER, reported at (2009)8Supreme Court Cases 751. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the applicant has participated in forgery or by signing the letters dated 1st November, 2010 has committed forgery. There could be cases where a person signing his own name may commit forgery, if he poses to hold an office or poses that he has powers which he does not in fact hold or have. In any case, this question would have to be examined during the investigation and, if the applicant is eventually charge sheeted, at the trial. 8. The claim of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not at all granted leave and therefore, could have signed those letters or granted permission has to be taken with the pinch of salt. The applicant tries to take the benefit of Government orders which prevent controlling officer from granting leave. If he was such 7 ABA 33-2011 an obedient servant, he could have gone and joined at his new posting on 22nd October, 2010 as per Government orders. In any case, leave sought was on the ground of illness. If that ground was genuine, applicant would obviously have not been in position to perform his duty. Therefore, there was no question of applicant's being in position to sanction construction. It is also curious that Rochlani had made an application on 19th October, 2010. It is not known at what time on that date applications were received by the Municipality. It is not known at what time the applications were processed; when the Junior Engineer went to the spot & conducted inspection which he claims to have done; when he returned to his office, & made a note for being put up for approval before the applicant and therefore, the angle of applicant's being involved in conspiracy to coerce people to part with money even in order to proceed with their legitimate construction activities would 8 ABA 33-2011 need investigation. 9. In view of this & also because the applicant had sought leave on the ground of illness and therefore, should not have been in his office, applicant's application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)