..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3214 OF 2008 Milind Madusudan Sakhalkar. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Rajiv L. Patil, Sr. Advocate h/f. Sameer Singh, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th September, 2008. DATED : 11th September, 2008. DATED : 11th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.274 of 2008 of Kandivali Police Station. The said case is mainly under Sections 464, 467, 468 of IPC. 3. The complaint has been filed by the officers of B.M.C.. The offence alleged against the applicant is that he has created false and fabricated documents i.e. Gumasta licence and the ..(2).. map on which his structure is standing. The concerned authority which issues the Gumasta licence has made it clear that no such licence has been issued by Mumbai Municipal Corporation or any of his officers. The further statement of the City Survey Officer shows that the land shown in the map in question was a open plot of land and there was no construction on the same. From the statements of the City Survey Officer and the Officers of Mumbai Municipal Corporation prima facie it does appear that the documents produced by the applicant are fabricated and false. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on an order passed by the City Civil Court in Suit No.440 of 2008. In the said Suit, the respondent Corporation had taken a stand that the documents relied upon by the applicant are fabricated. In the said matter the learned Judge has observed that it is a matter of evidence whether the documents are fabricated and it cannot be discussed at that stage. Hence, injunction was granted in respect of the notice issued under Section 351 of the B.M.C.Act and also in respect of an order passed by the Assistant Municipal ..(3).. Commissioner in respect of the suit premises. 5. The above order is passed in a Civil Suit. The said order is dated 24.4.2008. The FIR in the present case has been lodged on 28.7.2008. The material on record in the present case prima facie shows that the documents relied upon by the applicant are forged. The observations made in the order in the Civil Suit are only limited to the reliefs sought in the said Suit. 6. Looking to the material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 7. On the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, applicant is granted time to surrender till 15th September, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)