IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.839/2008 Dr. Sheela Taori & another ..vs.. State ================================================ CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE: 8.4.2008 Heard Mr. Loney, Advocate for the applicants and Mrs. Khade, A.P.P. for State. By order date d3.3.2008, interim order was passed in favour of the applicant. It was specifically observed that the custodial interrogation of the applicant was not necessary. Reply filed by the respondent perused. It appears from paragraph 3 of the reply that the allegations against the applicants are that they are not cooperating the prosecution for investigation. It is also submitted that they have siphoned away funds of trust and are also making appointments of employees in the institutions run by the trust on the basis of various resolutions passed by the applicants, while passing the resolutions the applicants have fabricated the documents. It is also submitted that for securing the documents the custodial investigation is necessary. On perusal of the reply it appears that objections are of general nature. No specific instances as regarding non-cooperating of applicants for investigation and their non-attendance have been pointed out. It is the case of the prosecution that the resolutions have been forged by the applicants. It does appear that the relevant documents have been already seized and referred to handwriting expert. It appears that no custody of the applicants is necessary. Hence interim order needs to be confirmed. In the event of arrest of the applicants for the offences punishable under section 464, 465, 468, 470, 471, 420 r/w section 34 of I.P.C. vide crime no.19/2008 of P.S. Sewagram, District Wardha, each of them be released on furnishing surety and PRB of Rs.15000/- subject to conditions that they shall report at P.S. Sewagram, Distt. Wardha, as and when directed by I.O. for the purposes of investigation in writing and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. Prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of anticipatory bail, if necessary in future Application stands disposed of. JUDGE smp.