1 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2011 Mohan Nana Patil .. Applicant V/s 1. Prakash Purshottam Bhoir 2. Prabhakar Govind Bhoir 3. Balkrishna Bhaskar Patil 4. Manohar Balkrishna Kini 5. Pravin Arjun Gharat 6. Ramesh Lakhma Vaze 7. Devendra Narayan Bhoir 8. Makrand Harishchandra Gharat 9. Mahendra Govind Gharat 10. Ramchandra Vasudeo Patil 11. Manohar Nana Patil 12. Sou. Savita Rajendra Wayada 13. Smt. Jagruti Ashok Vaze 14. Madhukar Janardhan Mankar 15. Hitesh Ramchandra Patil 16. Deepak Chintaman Bhoir 17. Shaukant Chincholkar 18. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3826 OF 2010 Avinash Gajanan Patil .. Applicant V/s 1. Ramchandra Vasudev Patil 2. Prabhakar Govind Bhoir 3. Balkrishna Bhaskar Patil 4. Manohar Balkrishna Kini 5. Pravin Arjun Gharat 6. Ramesh Lakhma Vaze 7. Devendra Narayan Bhoir 2 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 8. Makrand Harishchandra Gharat 9. Mahendra Govind Gharat 10. Prakash Purushottam Bhoir 11. Manohar Nana Patil 12. Sou. Savita Rajendra Wayada 13. Smt. Jagruti Ashok Vaze 14. Madhukar Janardhan Mankar 15. Hitesh Ramchandra Patil 16. Deepak Chintaman Bhoir 17. Shaukant Chincholkar 18. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr. Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for the applicant in Cri. Application No. 149/2011. Mr. N.B. Shah i/b Mr. Piyush Shah for the applicant in Cri. Application No. 3826/2010. Mr. Sarang V. Kotwal with Mr. Manoj Mohite for respondent nos.1 to 8 and 10 to 16 in Cri. Application No. 149/2011. Mr. Prakash Naik with Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal and Mr. Pawan Patil for respondent no.17. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the respondent no.18 - State. CORAM: D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 17TH OCTOBER 2011 P.C: 1. These applications have been placed before me as per the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 18th April 2011 on the ground that initial order granting pre-arrest bail was passed by me. 2. The applicant in Criminal Application No. 3826 of 3 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 2010 is the original complainant. The applicant in Criminal Applicant No. 149 of 2011 is a member of Vasai Pragati Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (for short "the Society"). Elections to the Managing Committee of the Society were held on 31st January 2006. Respondent nos.1 to 7 and 9 to 14 were elected as the office bearers (members of the Managing Committee) of the Society. Under sub-section (1AB) of section 73 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), the elected members of the Managing Committee are required to submit a bond in a prescribed form within 15 days of assuming of the office, failing which they are deemed to have vacated the office. According to the complainant and the applicant, the respondent nos.1 to 7 and 9 to 14 did not submit the bond within 15 days of assuming their office and, therefore, they were deemed to have vacated the office as members of the Managing Committee. However, in order to cover up the lapse and to continue as members of the Managing Committee, some time later they submitted ante-dated and forged bonds and thereby continued to hold the office of the members of the Managing Committee. The applicant in Criminal Application No. 3826 of 2010 for himself and representing 4 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 other members of the Society filed a FIR with Virar Police Station that the aforesaid respondents had forged and used the ante-dated bonds and submitted them to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and thereby they had committed an offence punishable under sections 420, 464, 465, 466 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent nos.1 to 8 and 10 to 16 thereafter moved this Court for pre-arrest bail by filing Criminal Application No. 579 of 2010. The respondent no.17, who is a stamp vendor, filed a separate application bearing Criminal Application No. 617 of 2010 for pre-arrest bail. By an order dated 11th February 2010, I allowed the Criminal Application No. 578 of 2010 filed by respondent nos.1 to 8 and 10 to 16 and granted them pre-arrest bail. By another order dated 15th February 2010, I allowed the Criminal Application No. 617 of 2010 filed by respondent no.17 and granted him pre-arrest bail. By the present applications, the applicants have prayed for cancellation of the pre- arrest bail. 3. So far as respondent nos.1 to 8 and 10 to 16 are concerned, at the hearing of the application for pre-arrest bail, they submitted that the ante-dated bonds alleged to 5 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 have been prepared by them were not actually used and that they had never submitted the said bonds either to the Society or to the Registrar or any other authority. It was their contention that mere preparation of ante-dated document would not amount to an offence unless the same was used by submitting it to the Registrar or the Society or any other authority. This submission appealed to me and the pre-arrest bail was granted by making the following observations: "No ante-dated bond has been submitted to the Registrar and no forged (ante-dated) document has ever been used. In my view, the applicants can be granted pre-arrest bail." The pre-arrest bail was granted on the assumption that the concerned respondents had not used the ante-dated bonds nor submitted them to any authority. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submitted that the submission, which was made by the counsel for the applicants, that the ante-dated bonds were not actually used and were never submitted to the Society or the 6 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 Registrar was factually incorrect. He invited my attention to the report of the Police Sub-Inspector, Virar Police Station dated 2nd March 2010 in which he had given good reasons for his absence in the Court on 11th February 2010 when the application for pre-arrest bail was heard. The report further states that the bonds in question were actually used by the concerned respondents and had been submitted to the office of the Registrar. The Registrar under his letter dated 25th September 2009 has informed to the complainant/applicant that the bonds were submitted to his office. This information was furnished by him to the applicant under the Right to Information Act. It is thus clear that the statement that the bonds were not used by the concerned respondents was an incorrect statement and on the basis of that incorrect statement the pre-arrest bail was granted by me. 5. The next question that arises is: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of pre-arrest bail is required to be cancelled? and if so, against whom? 6. The photostat copies of the bonds executed by the concerned respondents and submitted to the Registrar's 7 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 office through the Society are produced before me as annexures to the application. The rubber stamps on the concerned stamp-papers show that the stamp-papers for the bonds were purchased by the stamp vendor (respondent no.17) from the Treasury on 3rd February 2006 and were sold by the concerned respondent on 6th February 2006. The original bonds written on the aforesaid stamp-papers were sent to the forensic laboratory for deciphering the dates. The report of the forensic laboratory was produced for inspection of the Court by the learned A.P.P. The report reads thus: "Marks of erasures are observed beneath the date/month/year stamps on stamp papers of denomination Rs.100/- in exhibits 1 to 26 date stamp "8 DEC 200C" and "17 DEC 200C" is deciphered respectively beneath present date of stamps. ....." The photographs taken using ultraviolet lamp are also annexed to the report. From the report and the photographs annexed thereto, it prima facie appears that the rubber stamp of the dates originally put on the stamp 8 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 papers have been altered. This can be further concluded from the fact that the register of sale of stamp-papers seized by the police from the stamp vendor does not show the sale of concerned stamp-papers on "3 FEB 2006" or "6 FEB 2006". In the original register maintained by the stamp vendor, there are entries of sale of stamp papers made on "22 DEC 2008" and "24 DEC 2008" respectively. This prima facie shows that the stamp vendor had sold the concerned stamp-papers on 22nd and 24th December 2008 and not on 3rd or 6th February 2006 as shown on the stamp-papers of the bonds used by the concerned respondents. 7. Learned A.P.P. submits that the police require the custody of the concerned respondents for investigation and in particular for investigating who made changes in the dates of purchase of stamp papers, what was the chemical used for altering the dates, wherefrom the chemical was procured and the method used for the purpose of alteration. Submission of the learned A.P.P. cannot be brushed aside lightly that custodial investigating is necessary for the purpose of ascertaining these facts. 9 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 8. So far as the respondent no.17 (stamp vendor) is concerned, there is no prima facie material to show that he had sold the stamp papers by ante-dating them. In fact, the report of forensic laboratory shows that the original dates of sale put on the stamp-papers by way of rubber stamping were altered. If so, there is no prima facie material to show that he is party to any offence of forgery. Therefore, pre-arrest bail granted to him cannot be cancelled. 9. So far as the respondent no.8 is concerned, he was not elected as a member of the Managing Committee on 31st January 2006, but was co-opted as a member of the Managing Committee in August 2008. Therefore, there was no question of his submitting the ante-dated bond of the year 2006. No prima facie material was produced before me to show that he had submitted the ante-dated bond of the year 2006. Consequently, the pre-arrest bail granted to him cannot be cancelled. 10. So far as the respondent no.9 is concerned, he had not applied for pre-arrest bail and no pre-arrest bail was granted to him. I am informed that he is paralytic and is 10 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 confined to bed and therefore he had not applied for the pre-arrest bail. In any event, since pre-arrest bail has not been granted to him, there is no question of cancelling any order qua him. 11. So far as the respondent nos.15 and 16 are concerned, they are employees of the Society and are not the members of the Managing Committee. They had not executed any ante-dated bond. Hence, I am not inclined to cancel the pre-arrest bail qua respondent nos.15 and 16 subject to condition that they cooperate with the police and attend the police station as and when required. 12. For these reasons, I pass the following order: (i) I decline to cancel the order dated 15th February 2010 granting pre-arrest bail to respondent no.17 - Shri Shaukant Chincholkar. However, the order dated 11th February 2010 granting pre-arrest bail to the applicants therein, i.e. respondent nos.1 to 7 and 10 to 14 to these applications, is cancelled. Their names are: Respondent No.1 - Prakash Purshottam Bhoir Respondent No.2 - Prabhakar Govind Bhoir Respondent No.3 - Balkrishna Bhaskar Patil 11 Cri.Appln. 149/2011 Respondent No.4 - Manohar Balkrishna Kini Respondent No.5 - Pravin Arjun Gharat Respondent No.6 - Ramesh Lakhma Vaze Respondent No.7 - Devendra Narayan Bhoir Respondent No.10 - Ramchandra Vasudeo Patil Respondent No.11 - Manohar Nana Patil Respondent No.12 - Sou. Savita Rajendra Wayada Respondent No.13 - Smt. Jagruti Ashok Vaze Respondent No.14 - Madhukar Janardhan Mankar (ii) I decline to cancel the order granting pre-arrest bail to respondent nos.15 - Hitesh Ramchandra Patil and respondent no.16 - Deepak Chintaman Bhoir, subject to the condition that they shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday commencing from today onwards between 15.00 hours and 18.00 hours for a period of 8 weeks and thereafter whenever specifically summoned for that purpose. (iii) It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of this application and the Magistrate/Sessions Court shall not be influenced by any of them at the stage of trial. (D.G.KARNIK, J.)