IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1470 OF 2009 1. Chetan Manharlal Gaglani 2. Kashmira Chetan Gaglani ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri Aabad H.H. Ponda for Applicants Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 26TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the Learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail 3. The Applicant No.1 is a Chartered Accountant. The Applicant No.2 is a wife. The complaint has been registered against the Applicants vide C.R. No.61 of 2008 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Complainant is a client of the Applicant No.1 and he was looking after her tax returns. An amount of Rs. 5,81,764/- was paid to the Applicant No.2. It is alleged that the said amount was not repaid and the cheques which were given for repayment of the said amount,were dishonoured and, therefore, the said complaint has been filed. It is submitted that the entire amount has been repaid to the Complainant. This fact was not disputed by the Complainant before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has also made an observation to that effect that the said amount has been repaid. It is submitted that the transaction in question, is essentially of a civil nature and only because the cheques were dishonoured, the said complaint has been filed. The Sessions Court has rejected the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that there is no progress in the investigation. It has observed that the accused could have been entitled for anticipatory bail, if there was some progress in the investigation of crime which is registered against them. In my view, the said observation is patently incorrect and cannot be a ground for rejection of application for anticipatory bail. 4. In the present case, it is obvious that the Complainant had paid the amount to the Applicant No.2 for the purpose of reducing her tax liability and when this amount was not paid in time as demanded by her, the complaint is filed. In any event, the entire amount has now been paid and custodial interrogation, therefore, under these circumstances, is not necessary. The Investigating Officer is ought to have completed the investigation. Prima facie case is, therefore, made out for grant of anticipatory bail. The Applicant is a Chartered Account by profession and the Applicant No.2 is a business- woman. 5. The Applicants, therefore, in the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.61 of 2008 registered at Bangoor Nagar Police Station for the offence under sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they shall be released on bail in a sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicant Nos.1 and 2 shall report to the concerned police station for a period of 3 days from 30th March, 2009 between 11 a.m. & 2 p.m. and, thereafter, as and when called. 6. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.