[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1753 OF 2007 Subhash Dhondu Angre ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents ... Mr.Yusuf Iqbal with Arpan Rajput advocate for applicant Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State Mr.Kiran Jain advocate for original compalinant ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 4, 2007 DATE : JUNE 4, 2007 DATE : JUNE 4, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned advocate for the original complainant. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.119 of 2007 of MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is mainly under Sections 420, 468 and 120-B of IPC. 3. The wife of the original accused no.3 has lodged complaint against her husband i.e. accused no.3 and other accused, one of them being the present applicant. [-2-] 4. The case of the complainant is that her husband dishonestly misappropriated the funds of the Company by withdrawing the amounts from the accounts standing in the name of the company and also from the personal accounts by forging the signatures. The present applicant was working as a Peon in the said company. It is the case of the prosecution that original accused no.3 and the present applicant had entered into conspiracy and the amounts which were withdrawn from these accounts, were transferred to the accounts of the present applicant. In the present case, the investigation is still going on. The learned A.P.P. states that the investigation is at a crucial juncture. Looking to the fact that the investigation is going on, I am not inclined to grant bail at this stage. 5. Application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer a fresh application for bail at a later stage. 6. Application is disposed of. [Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.]