1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1389 OF 2010 Vilas s/o Bansidharrao Tangade & anr ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the applicants Shri D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 27th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel for the applicants as well as heard Mr. D.V. Tele, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant Nos.1 and 2, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under C.R. No.2/2010, registered at Ghansavangi Police Station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 199 and 200 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal 2 Code. 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Mr. Pranit Shriram Tangade on 20.2.2010. It appears that, said Pranit Tangade has filed a private complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghansavangi and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class passed an order thereon, directing to carry out the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 11.2.2010 and accordingly, offence came to be registered against the applicants with Ghansavangi Police Station, District Jalna. It is alleged in the said complaint that the applicants have prepared false documents without the consent of the complainant in respect of Samarth Sanskritik Krida Mandal Va Vyayam Mandal and Samarth Matsavyavasay Sanstha by preparing forged signatures of the complainant, and filed false affidavit in that regard and caused misappropriation of huge amount to the tune of Rs.2,90,000/- and including interest, Rs.3,38,000/-, on the basis of the forged documents, and thereby defrauded the Government. 4. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicants urged that, the complainant has not filed any complaint before the police station or the concerned Department in 3 respect of the alleged misappropriation so far nor any complaint has been filed with the Cooperative Department also by the complainant so far. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as regards the registration of the Society, the members are required to remain present before the concerned officer and, therefore, there is no question of forging the signature of the complainant by the applicants for registration of the Society. It is further canvassed by learned counsel for the applicants that the necessary record was available with the concerned Department i.e. District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Assistant Charity Commissioner respectively and nothing is to be recovered from the applicants herein and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary and hence, requested that the present application be allowed. 5. The learned A.P.P. Mr. D.V. Tele countered the said arguments and opposed the present application vehemently, and submitted that, during the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses have been recorded and the witnesses namely Mohan Tandale and Kiran Raut have stated in their respective statements that their signatures are bogus and forged. The learned A.P.P. also submitted that the statement of Bhagwan Tandale discloses that earlier he was member of the aforesaid Society and the 4 Government grant of Rs.2,90,000/- was received in the year 2003 and said Bhagwan Tandale prevented the applicants to withdraw the said grants and, therefore, the applicants forged signature and removed him and subsequently withdrew the said amount of Rs. 2,90,000/-. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that reminders have been sent by Archaeological Department to the applicants in that respect, but same were not responded. To counter the said arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that no complaint has been lodged by the said Department against the applicants so far. 6. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the names of the applicants have been reflected in the complaint lodged by the complainant and specific role and overt act has been attributed to them in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, apparently, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicants in the alleged offence nor the possibility of maligning the reputation of the applicants. The investigation is in progress, and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the further progress in the investigation in proper perspective. Moreover, the huge amount of Rs.2,90,000/- is involved in the present offence. 5 Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, present application deserves to be rejected. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. 7. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri138910