1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4421 OF 2009 Shri Madan Chandan Meher ... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent. Mr. R. Thakur for the applicant. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is registered with Kharghar Police Station vide C.R. No. I-144/09. 3. Applicant is working as a clerk-cum-typist with CIDCO Ltd. and he is also working in Survey Office as clerk 2 since May 2007. A complaint was filed on 20/08/2009 by one Abdul Jabar Mohd. Ajin Patel claiming that their lands were acquired by the Government on behalf of CIDCO and that the persons whose lands were acquired, were entitled to get 12.5% of the lands. When inquiry was made by them, it transpired that the land which was to be allotted to the original owners was allotted to some other persons and the land was, thereafter, handed over by the said persons to the builder for development, depriving the original owners of the land which they were entitled under 12.5% scheme introduced by the CIDCO. Accordingly, investigation had commenced in the said case. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant was a clerk-cum-typist and he was not concerned in any manner with the allotment of land to the other persons. He submitted that his duty was to maintain the file pertaining to the allotment of the said plot of land. He submitted that other accused were released on bail and even the Builder who was constructing the building on the said plot was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. He further submitted that the Sessions Court had erred in holding that the applicant could have verified the photographs with those persons who had approached him in connection with the said plot. He 3 submitted that this procedure was never followed at any time in the past. He submitted that the award which was passed did not carry the photographs of the persons in whose favour the award was passed. He, therefore, submitted that the basis on which the application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Second Additional Sessions Judge was itself erroneous. He submitted that the applicant had reported to Police pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and the custodial interrogation of the applicant, therefore, was not necessary. He further submitted that the applicant was working as a clerk-cum-typist and, therefore, could not be held responsible as he was lowest amongst the Officers in the hierarchy. It is submitted that the applicant did not have discretionary power to prepare the file and he could only act on the instructions given by Superior Officers. 5. The submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant cannot be accepted. Admittedly, lands of number of persons were acquired and these persons were entitled to get 12.5% of the entire land for their own purpose. However, instead of allotting land to them, fabricated documents were prepared and the said land was allotted to some other fictitious persons. Applicant was handling 4 the said file. In my view, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to find out the details regarding the manner in which the said allotment was made to fictitious persons and not to the real original owners. Hence, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 6. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 7. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant seeks 15 days time to surrender. This request is not granted. Applicant shall forthwith surrender to the Police. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)