1 CR.APP.NO.1681/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1681 OF 2009. Balasaheb (Babasaheb) s/0 Rangnath Kulkarni ...Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. ... Mr.S.B.Bhapkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.J.S.Gavane, APP for the respondent. Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate on behalf of the original complainant, to assist the prosecution. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 6th July, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.44/2009, dated 12th May, 2009, registered 2 CR.APP.NO.1681/2009. at Mantha Police Station,Taluka: Mantha, Dist.Jalna for the offence punishable under Sections 406,409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is alleged that the applicant was working as Secretary of certain Agricultural Produce Market Committee, till 1st of September, 2007. Pursuant to certain orders passed by this Court, the complainant was appointed as the Secretary in place of the applicant. The applicant, however, did not hand over the record of the office to the complainant. The complainant and others sent several letters demanding the handing over the original record. In one of the letters it is also mentioned that the applicant had kept certain amounts of office with him and despite such letters and reminders, the applicant did not return the amounts. 3. A few months prior to the complaint, similar notices demanding the record was sent to the applicant but in vain. Ultimately, complaint came to be lodged on 12th of May, 2009. Despite of the complaint, despite of presenting this application and despite of the so called cooperation offered by the applicant to the Investigation Officer, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant surrendered the record of the Office at least to 3 CR.APP.NO.1681/2009. the Investigation Officer. Mr.Bhapkar, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, is not in a position to make statement to that effect. He simply asserted that since the complaint is in respect of an old event and since the applicant has been attending the Investigation Officer's Office for last one month, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. 4. This argument is superficial and does not answer the core issue as to whether the applicant handed over the original record of the office, which he took away in September, 2007. In absence of an explanation on this issue from the applicant, the stand taken by the applicant is not bonafide. Even though, the Investigation Officer, during last one month, could not recover the record from the applicant, I am not inclined to grant the applicant a discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The application stands rejected. 5. Mr.Bhapkar, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, requests to continue the protection, which was granted earlier by this Court to the applicant, for few more days. However, said request can not be considered and it is rejected. 6. Mr.S.J.Salunke, learned Advocate is permitted 4 CR.APP.NO.1681/2009. to assist the prosecution, on behalf of the original complainant. Criminal Application No. 2259/2009 stands disposed of. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.