IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4338 OF 2008 Dhaval Ashachandra Jhaveri ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri S.P. Kadam for Applicant Shri S.R. Shinde,APP for the State Shri G.W. Mattus, Asst. Government Pleader for Complainant. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 5TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, the learned APP for the State and Shri Mattus the learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Complainant. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. A complaint has been filed against the Applicant for the offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 472, 420, 511 of Indian Penal Code at the Kherwadi Police Station, Mumbai by the Officers of MHADA. 3. It is the case of the Complainant that it was brought to their notice that the Applicant had prepared false and fabricated allotment letters on the fabricated letter heads of MHADA showing that two plots belonging to MHADA were allotted to the Applicant and the possession was also handed over to him. When these facts were brought to the notice of the Officers of MHADA and these documents were came into their possession, the present complaint was filed. 4. The Applicant had filed an application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court, which was rejected by the order dated 18.11.2008. Thereafter, this present application has been filed by the Applicant in this Court. 5. Shri Kadam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary since it has to be established that the said possession letter cum possession receipt was forged by the Applicant. He further submitted that even otherwise, there was no record to indicate that these documents had been used by the Applicant at any point of time. He submitted that the Applicant had attended the police station on number of occasions when the summons was issued by the police under section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1. 6. I have perused the complaint filed by the Complainant. The allegations made in the complaint are of serious nature. In order to find out how the said documents were prepared, in my view, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary. In any event, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. The Applicant is at liberty to file an application for regular bail after he is arrested by the police. 7. Application is, accordingly, rejected. 8. Interim order is vacated. V.M. KANADE J.