1 2IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5597 OF 2009 Rahul Dhoka ....Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Ms. Vishranti Navale for Applicant Mrs. P.P. Shinde  APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with an offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Bandhgarden Police Station, Pune vide C.R. No. 410/ 2009. 2 3. According to the prosecution, the Applicant and his RTO Agent, Sunil Solanki put a bogus seal and bogus endorsement on the licence renewal form and had thereby committed the said offence. 4. Shri A.P.Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is working as a vegetable agent in the Market Yard, Pune. The Applicant had a driving licence and that the said licence was to be renewed and for that purpose he approached his agent Sunil Solanki, who filled the form for renewal of his driving licence. The Applicant put his signature on the form and paid Rs.162.70 which was the fee for renewal of licence. Therefore, he was asked to come after 4 to 5 days to collect the renewed licence. One Shrikrishna Damale, who is working in the RTO office lodged the complaint that the endorsement on the said form and the seal was bogus and to that effect he had verified the documents. The Applicant s RTO agent Sunil Solanki was arrested. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Applicant had no reason to forge the said endorsement since he had a valid licence which had expired and he had applied for the renewal and he had also paid renewal fee of Rs. 162/-. He submitted that the said application for renewal was made in routine course and there was no 3 reason for the Applicant to cheat the RTO Office. He submitted that it is not the prosecution case that the Applicant had a fake driving licence and, therefore, he had applied for renewal by forging the seal of RTO. He submitted that the only allegation against the present Applicant is that Applicant had signed the said form and that the Applicant had no idea about the same and at the highest, it can be said that the said agent had committed the said offence. 5. There is much substance in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant. The present Applicant is a businessman and he is the vegetable agent in the Market Yard, Pune. Admittedly, it is not the prosecution case that the said previous licence of the Applicant was a fake licence. It is not the case of the prosecution that by forging the said document, the Applicant had avoided to pay the revenue to the State Government or had in any manner, received any unfair advantage on account of the said forgery. This being the position, in my view, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary. 6. The Applicant, therefore, in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No.410/ 2009 registered at Bandhgarden Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. 34 4 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station, as and when called. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE- J.)