1 ABA 338-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY APPLICATION NO.338 OF 2011 Janardan Dharma Patil ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.H.S.Deshpande, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2011 P.C. . This is an application for anticipatory bail by a person, who apprehends arrest in connection with C.R.No.137 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Pen Police Station, District Alibaug and who had attested a receipt for payment and possession. The documents do not show that the applicant had identified the person 2 ABA 338-2011 receiving the amount as Anusaya Gopinath Patil. The allegation of the investigating officer is that the applicant knew the original Anusaya Gopinath Patil and still attested the documents made by duplicate Anusaya Gopinath Patil. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not identified said Anusaya Gopinath Patil. He has only attested the documents. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant knew the original Anusaya Gopinath Patil or that a different person owned a property in respect of which he attested the documents. Therefore, since one Rajendra Dwarkanath Vedak, who had in fact purchased the property has been admitted to anticipatory bail by Order dated 2nd February, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibaug. Therefore, there is no reason why this applicant should not be admitted to anticipatory bail. 3 ABA 338-2011 2. In view of this, in the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.50,000/- on the following conditions. (i) The applicant shall report at the Pen Police Station, District Alibaug for interrogation on 5th May, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer. (ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 3. Anticipatory Application is disposed of. . The order will remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge sheeted the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 2nd December, 2010 delivered in Special 4 ABA 338-2011 Leave Petition (Cri.) No.7615 of 2009 (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra And Ors.). (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)