IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 376 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 376 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 376 OF 2009 1. Sagar Bipin Morjaria, 2. Nimesh Kirit Morjaria, 3. Bhavin Nalinkant Vatsaraj, 4. Gaurishankar Rajnarayan Mishra, 5. Noor Hasan Khan ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b. Mr.Shailesh Kantharia for the Applicants. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JANUARY 30, 2009 DATED : JANUARY 30, 2009 DATED : JANUARY 30, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants, the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the Complainant. 2. The applicants no.1 to 4 are carrying on business of decorators under the name and style of "National Decorators" since 1961. Applicant no.5 is one of the subcontractors of these applicants. One Mishra and Bhoomika were appointed by the present applicants no.1 to 4 and they were working as Event Managers in the - 2 - said business of the applicants. They were removed, according to the applicants, sometime in 2006. It is the case of the applicants that these two persons Mr.Rudra Narayan Mishra and Ms.Bhoomika Soni started representing that they were authorised to operate on behalf of the National Decorators and took several assignments, however, they did not complete those assignments, hence, several complaints, therefore, were received by the applicants herein. A complaint, therefore, was lodged by the applicants against the said two persons with the Juhu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of the IPC vide C.R.No.347/2008. Pursuant to the said complaint, Mishra and Bhoomika were arrested by the Juhu Police Station. A team was sent by the Juhu Police Station to carry out house search at the residence of Mishra and Bhoomika which is reflected from the Station Diary which is maintained by the Juhu Police Station. It is the case of the complainant in this case who he is the father of this Bhoomika that on 23.12.2008, the applicants visited the house of the complainant and took away certain designs, damaged the data of his daughter’s - 3 - computer and committed theft of certain articles. He lodged the complaint at Charkop Police Station on 21.1.2009. The applicants have an apprehension that they are likely to be arrested in connection with the said offence. 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Mundargi appearing on behalf of the applicants that this complaint has been filed belatedly as a counter blast to the complaint filed by them in order to seek revenge against the present applicants because they had filed the complaint against his daughter Bhoomika. It is also submitted that applicant no.5 in this case had filed the criminal complaint against the daughter of the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in the said complaint, she was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Andheri in C.C.No.2345/SS/07. 4. In my view, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie case is made out by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. The - 4 - record indicates that the complainant’s case was filed prior in point of time and thereafter, after almost one month, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant. In any event, in my view, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. The judgments in the said case of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, indicates that the complainant’s daughter was convicted on a complaint filed by applicant no.5. Prima facie, therefore, there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the complainant had a strong motive to file a complaint for falsely implicating the present applicants. 5. The learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the applicants shall, however, report to Charkop Police Station, in order to enable the Investigating Officer to investigate the said complaint. Since the complaint has been lodged against the present applicants, the Investigating Officer shall have a right to investigate the said complaint. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, in my view, the custodial interrogation - 5 - is not necessary. 6. The applicants shall report to the Charkop Police Station for a period of four days from 2nd February, 2009 between 11 a.m and 2 p.m. and thereafter, as and when called. The applicants shall be called during the reasonable hours i.e. between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. In the event of the applicant’s arrest in connection with C.R.No.11/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 of the IPC registered at Charkop Police Station, the applicants be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicants initially are permitted to give cash bail and within two weeks thereafter, shall furnish the aforesaid surety. 7. The application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)