6crn366-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.366 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2665 OF 2010 Mr.Sachin Damodar Sale. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Mundargi for the applicant in this application for recalling of the earlier order passed by this Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant. 2. It is rather a peculiar prayer asked in the present application apparently to reconsider the entire earlier disposed of application on merits and reappraise the material 6crn366-10 2 and come to conclusion that there was a ground for the applicant to get released on anticipatory bail. 3. Earlier Criminal Application No.2665 of 2010 preferred by the applicant for seeking anticipatory bail was heard at length and a detailed order was passed by this Court on 7.6.2010. Suffice it to say that at this juncture it is necessary to mention certain factual position as to the present applicant allegedly producing the documents concerning his tax assessments with the signatures and rubber stamp of some Chartered Accountant. However, according to the said Chartered Accountant, as per his statement recorded by the investigating agency, he had not dealt with any such documents of assessment of the applicant and he has not even signed or put any such rubber stamp on the documents. On that basis, it was ascertained that prima faice the applicant was involved in the fabrication of documents and using the same in the matter. On that basis, earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court. 6crn366-10 3 4. Present application for recalling said earlier order, mentions that now according to the knowledge of the applicant the hard-disk in the computer system of the main accused contains all such details as to the taxation documents and that the main accused is the main brain behind such concoction and the applicant has nothing to do with production of such papers. This argument presupposes that for the first and even the last time such documents are in the computer system of the main accused and that there is nothing to suggest that they were subsequently loaded in the computer system. This presupposition cannot be accepted as otherwise also at any further point of time certain documents can be loaded in the computer system and hard-disk so as to create an evidence. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence which can be dealt with by the trial Court at the time of trial in the matter. On that ground itself it cannot be said that the earlier order can be recalled by this Court much less there can be any such provision available to again reappraise the entire 6crn366-10 4 matter on the merits. 5. Prior to putting end to the present application, it must be mentioned that the order of rejection of the anticipatory bail was passed by this Court on 7.6.2010 and till today apparently the present applicant is not arrested by the investigating agency for whatever reasons. On this aspect, learned APP submitted that there was a pendency of the present application for recalling the earlier order. Needless to mention that there was no interim order passed though such application for recalling was pending before the Court immediately after passing of the order which is challenged. 6. In any event, in view of the above observations, present application is disposed of as the same is rejected being devoid of any merits. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)