abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 221 OF 2008 Harish Madan Rajput .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Niranjaj Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of crime registered with Manpada Police Station, Thane under C.R. No.147/2007 for the offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, section 25(1) of the Arms Act and sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. This matter had came up for hearing before me on 5th February 2008. On that day, learned A.P.P. stated - 2 - that a xerox copy of the inspection register dated 24th November 2006 annexed at page 21 of the application is not the true copy. In particular, he submitted that after the name of the shop M/s Ambika Jewellers, the words "(Harish M. Rajput)" have been inserted in the xerox copy fraudulently. The words "(Harish M. Rajput)" were not in the original certificate and have been subsequently added fraudulently by the applicant. They are in different handwriting. In view of this submission, the applicant was directed to produce the original certificate in the court. In pursuance of the order dated 5th February 2008, the applicant has produced the original certificate along with affidavit of his father dated 14th February 2008. Learned A.P.P. has also produced for my inspection office copy of the inspection register which is maintained as a carbon copy. The carbon copy is are returned after perusal. Perusal of the carbon copy shows that the words "(Harish M. Rajput)" are not found in the carbon copy. Perusal of the original certificate filed by the applicant along with the affidavit discloses that the said words are written in a different ink and different handwriting. In the circumstances, it is obvious that the words "(Harish M. Rajput)" have been added subsequently and were not in the original. 4. In the affidavit dated 14th February 2008, - 3 - father of the applicant has stated that he is unable to offer any explanation as to how the words came to be added in the original certificate. 5. In view of the finding that the certificate annexed to the application is false in the sense that it is not the true copy and that the applicant has attempted to mislead the Court by producing false document, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly the application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)