# IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3834 OF 2006 Suresh Shivram Gunjal .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Ms.Trupti Shetty for applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 10th November 2006 P.C. . This matter was argued yesterday i.e. 9th November 2006 and was placed for orders today. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has, in accordance with the statement made yesterday, filed an affidavit of the Cousin brother of the applicant original accused No.6. The affidavit sets out that the applicant has a fixed place of residence at the address mentioned in the cause title of this application. Further, he has been residing therein and the premises, according to applicant, have been purchased in terms of documents annexed to the affidavit. 3. Applicant is arrested on 14th September 2006 in connection with MECR No.17 of 2005 registered with A.C.B. Mumbai. Offences alleged are of forgery and cheating under I.P.C. so also those under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case of prosecution is that a building Siddhivinayak Coop.Housing Society consists of tenaments which are eligible for being developed and rehabilitated under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) scheme. The applicant is working as a Junior Clerk with SRA. The allegation is that one Developer in collusion with the Promoters of the society submitted a scheme for development and obtained letter of Intent in terms thereof. The allegation is that although, the details of persons entitled for rehabilitation are available the numbers have been inflated in the records and on that basis benefits of F.S.I. etc. are taken by the Developer. 4. Insofar as applicant is concerned, the allegation is that he has taken one letter addressed to a coop.bank so as to facilitate the Builder to obtain finance and other facilities. This letter is dated 7th March 2001. It was taken by the applicant to the Despatch Clerk whose statement is recorded on 30th August 2006. Beyond facilitating the Despatch of the letter which was addressed to the Bank by the Finance Controller of the S.R.A., the applicant, prima facie, is not involved in interpolation of the records or forgery and fabrication of other documents by which parties derived the benefit of F.S.I. etc. Insofar as the applicant is concerned, a perusal of the remand application also discloses that no incriminating documents have been found. 5. In these peculiar circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. The apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant may not be available at the time of trial is dispelled by the contents of the affidavit referred to above. Further, conditions as imposed hereinbelow will have to be abided by him as well. Hence, following order:- i) The applicant arrested in connection with C.R.No.17 of 2005 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount. ii) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant will remain present before the concerned investigating officer of A.C.B., Mumbai as and when summoned till conclusion of the trial. Applicant shall not leave Mumbai without prior permission of the trial court. iii) The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the investigating officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change his residential address thereafter till the conclusion of trial without prior intimation to the Investigating officer. iv) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. v) The applicant shall cooperate with the learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the case. Any attempt by the applicant to delay the trial may be a ground for cancellation of bail. vi) Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. vii) Application is disposed of in above terms. viii) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)