1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2586/09 ( Bhupendra Premsingh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. .......................................................................................................................................................... Mr S G Loney, Adv.for applicant Mr D P Thakare , APP for respondent CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE,J. DATED: 12 th August, 2009. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 129/2009 reported at Chandur Bazar Police Station Dist. Amravati, for offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged by one Ramesh Meshram on behalf of the Central Bank of India against Rajesh Ramesh Rathi R/o Vanjari nagar and others, on the ground they had in conspiracy with each other opened a new bank account, deposited bogus cheques in the bank on the basis of forged documents and withdrew a sum of Rs. 76,47,950/- during the period between 20th April,2009 and 27th May 2009. Even the bank account was opened in the bogus name by a person, whose identity in the course of investigation revealed as real brother of the applicant herein. The bail is also objected on the ground that present applicant is the main person who had prepared a plan in connivance with others in order to cheat the bank in the sum of Rs.76,47,950/- and the applicant used to come with his brother for withdrawal of the amount in the bank. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant states that one of the co-accused from the Bank has been released on bail by this Court. No such order has been pointed out to me. Be that as it may, in the course of investigation, the main role has been attributed to the present applicant and his brother 2 Rajesh Ramesh Rathi @ Shailendra Premsingh Thakur, on the ground that they had prepared false documents. The cheque of Kanpur Central Bank were credited in the name of Rajesh Ramesh Rathi in connivance with some bank employees and the amount of Rs. 76,47,950/- was withdrawn from Ghatladki Branch of Central Bank in the fictituous name of Rajesh Ramesh Rathi. 4. It appears that at the interim stage, this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail on 10th July 2009 as, at that stage, it was contended that the applicant is no way connected with the offence. According to Investigating Officer after interim anticipatory bail order in favour of the applicant was granted, he avoided investigation and did not observe the conditions imposed vide the bail order. Learned Advocate wants to reply upon the affidavit dated 18.7.2009 to argue that Police Inspector had gone to Achalpur for official work on 17.7.2009 and 18.7.2009 and, therefore, could not be attended. The material collected during the course of investigation statement of one Bhaiyyasaheb do indicate that the present applicant had opened an account with the Bank in the name of Rajesh Ramesh Rathi, thus in the process of opening a bank account in the bogus name, the name of the applicant does figure; subsequently it is revealed that Rajesh Ramesh Rathi is none other than Shailesh Thakur, brother of the applicant and said Rajesh Rathi is still absconding. It is noted that the present applicant has been introduced to the Bank by Mr Rajesh Ramesh Rathi. The applicant was associated with absconding accused Rajesh Rathi @ Shailendra Premsingh Thakur. 5. Earlier also, the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur by order dated 29.6.2009 rejected the anticipatory bail of this applicant being Misc.Cri. Appln. No.255/2009, considering the material collected during the investigation so far. Just because the applicant is in service at Indore investigation cannot be hampered as serious accusations are levelled, which need investigation in the larger interest of society. The application is rejected. 6. The learned Advocate for the applicant prayed that interim 3 anticipatory bail be continued for some time, in order to approach the Apex Court. The learned APP strongly opposed the same since anticipatory bail has been rejected on merits. Prayer is rejected. JUDGE. sahare