1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1776/2010 ( Latesh Vyankatrao Gajbhiye .vs. State of Maharashtra through PSO P.S. MIDC Hingana, Dist. Nagpur. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. Harshal Bobade, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2011 Heard. By this application, the applicant apprehending the arrest in connection with Crime No. 178/2010 for offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 408 of IPC has prayed for anticipatory bail. The application for similar prayer made by the applicant before the Court of Sessions is rejected on the count of involvement of the applicant being borne in such offences involving cheating of an amount of Rs.17.50 lacs. The same is also rejected on the ground of custodial interrogation of the applicant being necessary for the investigation of the said crime. Without unnecessary detailing about the 2 material collected during the investigation at the interim stage, it can be said that the perusal of diary prima facie reveals that applicant working as a commission agent for Phoenix Engineering has obtained Rs. 4.50 lacs from the company for depositing the said amount towards earnest money for the tenders to be submitted to the various Nagar Parishads which in fact he never submitted. It reveals that thereafter he had submitted forged work orders issued by Nagar Parishad Chikhaldara in the name of Phoenix Engineering for supply of road sweeper machine costing Rs.5,30,000/- and vacuum empeterier costing Rs.7,30,000/-. The said machinery was brought by the Company from the head office. The applicant has obtained the delivery of the said machines but the same was not delivered to Nagar Parishad, Chikhaldara. Though the learned counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant has never received any money, the material collected reveals that such an amount has been credited to his bank account in State Bank of India, Katol. Thus having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material collected so far, the enormity of the crime committed, it is difficult to accept the prayer for anticipatory bail as the same also denote that the custodial presence of the applicant will be necessary in order to ascertain the manner in which the forged documents were prepared and utilized for commission of crime and so also for recovery of the amount illegally gained by him. Thus discretion does not deserve to be exercised in favour of grant of bail as same is likely to adversely affect investigation which is in progress. Hence the 3 application is rejected. In view of disposal of Criminal Application 1776/2010, Criminal APPP No.1072/2010 also stands disposed of. JUDGE halwai