*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3948/2009 Mangesh Atmaram Tamanekar. ..Applicant -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent ............... Mr.V.N.Shingapurkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P., for the Respondent/State. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 02nd September, 2009. PC:- 1 This is an application moved under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.554/2009 registered with Sahar Police Station for commission of the offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 The Applicant is working as Head Constable with Mumbai Police. At the relevant point of time he was posted at Airport Branch of Mumbai Police in relation to work pertaining to emigration. According to the prosecution, co-accused Manga Singh was admitted to travel abroad claiming to be the son of other co- accused by name Amarjit Singh. The forged pass-port and visa were obtained in the name of accused No.1 from the agent. The allegation against the present Applicant is that he has cleared the *2* entry of both the co-accused by accepting a sum of Rs.45,000/-. However, the Emigration Officer could apprehend the co-accused. It was part of the duty of the present Applicant to inspect the pass- ports and visas of the passengers going abroad. Instead of performing the said duty, the Applicant has accepted the illegal gratification and tried to clear the co-accused. However, it was the Emigration Officer who identified the difference in the photographs. 3 The Applicant was placed under suspension. The record reveals that co-accused Amarjit Singh has frequently traveled to London and had succeeded in carrying different passengers under the fake pass-ports and visas. 4 Having regard to the seriousness of crime and more so having regard to the fact that the Applicant was posted on emigration duty wherein he accepted the illegal gratification and tried to clear the co-accused, I do not find it is a fit case for release of the Applicant by granting anticipatory bail. In the result, the application is rejected. (A.P. Deshpande, J)