1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4963 OF 2009 1. Smt. Savitri Shiv Kumar Mishra 2. Smt. Manorama Vijay Shankar Mishra ...Applicants. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhya & Ram Prakash Pandey i/b Law Juris for the applicants. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 13TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the complaint lodged by the complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class being Complaint No.502/2008. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the said complaint, Navpada Police Station, Thane has registered a 2 case being C.R. No.I-355 of 2008 against the applicants for the offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the complainant, he was a Secretary of the Trust and accused No.1 was the President of the Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act as also under Societies Registration Act. According to the complainant, by relying on fabricated Resolution, accused Nos. 1 to 5 filed a change report before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and an order was obtained on the change report on 16/10/2006 thereby removing the complainant from the post of Secretary. According to the complainant, this was done by passing false, forged and fabricated Resolution dated 8/10/2006 by putting forged signatures of other trustees on the said Resolution and on the application for change report. It is also alleged that the accused filed forged and fabricated document along with and as annexure to the said application of change report such as acknowledgment of notices issued to other Trustees and obtained ex parte order on the change report. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the complainant has suppressed certain 3 material facts in the said complaint. He submitted that in the first instance the complaint had been filed after a lapse of two years, though the said change report had taken effect from 16/10/2006. He submitted that the complainant was arrested on account of the complaint filed by the President against him for siphoning off the funds of the Trust and 4 to 5 complaints were filed against him. The learned Counsel submitted that on 22/8/2008, the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the Police to investigate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and almost after one year from passing of the said order, Police were trying to apprehend the present applicants. He submitted that, therefore, applicants have made out a case for grant of interim protection and that they need not be detained in jail. He submitted that applicants had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, however, did not grant interim protection solely on the ground that after a period of one year Police had not arrested the applicants and, therefore, it observed that the apprehension of arrest by the applicants was misconceived. 5. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the application for anticipatory bail. He submitted that similar application has been 4 filed by other trustees and it is posted for hearing on 19/11/2009. 6. In my view, there is some substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. First of all, there is delay in filing the complaint. No explanation has been given by the complainant as to why he did not proceed to file the complaint immediately after the order was passed on the application for change report on 16/10/2006. The complainant also appears to have suppressed the fact that he was arrested on a complaint filed by the President of the Trust. Apart from that, in my view, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary since the investigation officer will have to ascertain whether the alleged Resolution was passed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents after forging signatures of other trustees. The investigating officer apparently has not taken any steps for the past one year to ascertain from other trustees whether the Resolution was fabricated and forged and, for that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. The dispute, essentially, appears to be a civil dispute between the parties who are on the management of the Trust. The Sessions Court also, in my view, clearly erred in rejecting the application 5 for interim protection only on the ground that the applicants were not arrested for a period of one year from the date of the said order passed by the learned Magistrate. Under these circumstances, applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. 7. Applicants, therefore, in the event of their arrest in connection with C.R. No. I – 355 of 2008 registered at Navpada Police Station, District Thane for the offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/- each with one or two sureties each in the like amount. They shall report to the concerned Police Station as and when called. 8. Application is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)