{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3981 OF 2009 Nazir Ahmed Khan s/o Mansoor Khan APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.S.Kazi, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 7th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.225/2009 registered with Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the compliant. 3. It appears that in item No.5 of the said compliant, there is allegation against the present applicant that he, being an {2} advocate on the panel of the bank to give search reports, had submitted search report to the Bank in respect of a property to felicitate one Mr.Javed Ahmed to obtain loan. There is no whisper in the entire search report that the applicant has verified the revenue record and after verifying the same, from the office of Talathi, he found the document to be correct. In the premise, it appears that without verifying the documents title clearance certificate is given by the present applicant to the bank and relying on the said certificate, loan was disbursed by the bank. 4. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the authority reported in 1989 Cri.L.J. 252 in the matter of “Devidas V/s State”. According to learned counsel for the applicant, it is observed in the said judgment that though there is prima facie case implicating the applicant, he may be released on anticipatory bail. 5. Section 438 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended, speaks for anticipatory bail. It mandates that bail should be granted to an accused, if it is found that he is implicated in false accusation. However, here is the case where there is prima facie case against the applicant, who has submitted a report on the basis of which the bank had disbursed loans, which amounts not only fabrication of documents, but also creation of documents. It is submitted across the bar that the applicant is a practicing advocate since 1999 and if he without verifying the document, {3} issued the title clearance certificate, in respect of a person, to whom the bank has disbursed loan, then it cannot be said that merely because the applicant is a practice lawyer and available for interrogation, he be released on bail. In the premise, no case is made out to use the discretion to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application stands disposed of. The interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. The request of applicant to protect him for one day, is rejected. If there is prima facie case against the applicant, which indicates his involvement in such type of offence, then such practice requires to be deprecated and not to be boosted at the hands of Courts of law. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3981-09