..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2263 OF 2008 Anil Kacharu Gandhi. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.S.V.Kotwal, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th July, 2008. DATED : 11th July, 2008. DATED : 11th July, 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.104 of 2008 of Barshi police station. The said case is mainly under Sections 465, 468 of IPC and under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. 3. The case of the complainant is that on 16.6.2008 he found that the name of Rajendra Raut had been deleted from the 7/12 extract in respect of his land and the name of one Jagdish Patil had been inserted. Hence complaint came to be registered. The job of the applicant was to take out printouts of ..(2).. the 7/12 extracts, in the office of Tahsildar. 4. Mr.Kotwal, the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the name which was inserted as Jagdish Patil is that of the Collector and hence the 7/12 extract could not have been used to sell the land and hence there is no case of wrongful gain or wrongful loss. He further submitted that later on when the printout was taken out at about 11:00 p.m., the correct names were shown in the print-outs. 5. The learned APP has submitted that though the name of Collector is Jagdish Patil, there is nothing to show that the land was transferred in the name of Collector himself and not some other person whose name was Jagdish Patil. He further submitted that even though the changes were made in the entries only for a short period of time the 7/12 extracts in respect of the said entries can be misused by any party by relying on the said 7/12 extract. The learned APP also submitted that on 16.6.2008 it is found that 152 printouts were given whereas the register only shows that 25 printouts were given of 7/12 extracts. As stated earlier, the applicant was incharge of the job to take out printouts of 7/12 ..(3).. extracts in the office of the Tahsildar. Hence, I find much merit in the submission of the learned APP that the custody of the applicant is necessary for proper investigation of this case. 6. Lastly, Mr.Kotwal submitted that the said Rajendra Raut had a grudge against the applicant and hence he has falsely implicated the present applicant. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on letter dated 7.2.2008 wherein Rajendra Raut had made a complaint against the present applicant. It is true that in the said letter it is stated that the applicant has been squeezing the poor farmers while giving 7/12 extracts. However, it cannot be said that on account of this fact the applicant has been falsely implicated. 7. In my view, the material collected by the prosecution in the present case is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the present applicant. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to ..(4).. point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Moreover, in the present case, the custody of the applicant would be necessary to find out the exact nature and extent of the racket. Hence, application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)