1 ABA 446.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 446 OF 2011 Ramling Basavling Mali & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra through Akluj Police Station, Akluj, District : Solapur & Anr. ... Respondents. ALONG WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 458 OF 2011 Jayant Vishnu Naikude. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra through Akluj Police Station, Akluj, District : Solapur & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. R.R. Salvi i/b. Ms. Suvarna B. Telgote for the Applicants. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State in ABA No. 446/11 Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.2. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the State in ABA No. 458/11. Mr. Murlirao Ramrao Khokale, P.S.I., Akluj. CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 7th JUNE 2011. 2 ABA 446.11.sxw P.C. :- Heard Mr. R.R. Salvi, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State and Mr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – original Complainant, who was permitted to appear and make submissions opposing the application. 2. The Applicant in the Anticipatory Bail Application No. 458 of 2011 is referred to as Applicant No.3 for the sake of convenience. 3. Pursuant to the directions given yesterday, the Investigating Officer is present before the Court and has produced the Case Diaries. I have gone through the Case Diaries. 4. The Applicants are sought to be arrested on the basis of a complaint, made by Respondent No.2, against them, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The J.M.F.C., Malshiras, before whom the said complaint was 3 ABA 446.11.sxw made, ordered investigation into the matter as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which, C.R. No.48 of 2011 was registered at Akluj Police Station and the Applicants are sought to be arrested in the said case. 5. The facts of the case as appearing from the complaint are, in brief, that the Complainant Dr. Rahul Jawanjal, who is the Chairman of the Sahara Institute of Nursing, was by a Government Notification, appointed as a nominated member on the Maharashtra Nursing Council. That the Applicant No.1 is the Chairman of the Maharashtra Nursing Council and the Applicant No.2 is the Registrar of the said Council. The Applicant No.3 is the Chairman of Jai Institute of Nursing Education Society. The allegation against the Applicants is that the Applicant Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with the Applicant No.3, forged a bogus resignation letter purportedly signed by the Complainant and posted the same on 14.12.2011, from the Akluj Post Office. The said resignation letter is said to have been addressed and forwarded to the Secretary, Medical Education, Government of Maharashtra. That, on 25.3.2011, there was a meeting of the Maharashtra Nursing Council, but 4 ABA 446.11.sxw the Complainant was not called for the said meeting. The Complainant, therefore, questioned the Applicant Nos.1 and 2 as to why he had not been called for the meeting, when the Applicant No.2 is alleged to have said that it was so because the Complainant had already submitted resignation of his membership of the Maharashtra Nursing Council. That thereafter, the Complainant made inquiries and learnt that the Applicant Nos.1 and 2 had forged the said resignation letter on 23.1.2011 in collusion with the Applicant No.3 and in the presence of one Dr. Manoj Suryavanshi and one Biroba Baburao Shelke. The Complainant also learnt that the said resignation letter was posted by one Manoj Suryavanshi. The Complainant, has made certain assertions in the complaint, suggesting that the Applicant Nos.1 and 2 admitted having forged the resignation letter and having sent the same to the concerned authorities. 6. Mr. Salvi submitted that the persons cited in the complaint as witnesses have not supported the case of the Complainant and that, as a matter of fact, they have filed affidavits before this Court stating that they do not know 5 ABA 446.11.sxw anything in the matter. Mr. Warunjikar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that these affidavits are false, and atleast one of them is likely to be forged. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not wish to go deeper into this aspect, as I am not inclined to give much importance to such affidavits, for the present. However, even at this stage where the hazardous attempt to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegation is to be avoided, the likelihood of the Applicants committing forgery in the presence of the witnesses must be considered. It also ought to be kept in mind that the witnesses in whose presence the forgery was allegedly committed, admittedly, did not disclose this fact to the Complainant. These aspects are relevant for judging the broad probabilities of the case. 8. The Applicants have already attended the Police Station in the course of investigation and their specimen writings have been collected. 9. Mr. Warunjikar, on being specifically questioned, stated that the forged resignation letter has not actually been 6 ABA 446.11.sxw accepted or acted upon by the concerned authorities. Thus, no actual loss has been caused to the Complainant, by commission of the alleged offences. 10. At this stage, it would be hazardous to guess as to whether the allegation levelled is true or false. Even on the basis that there is substance in the allegation, it would be necessary to see whether anticipatory bail should be granted or not, by considering all the relevant aspects. In my opinion, the investigation can be satisfactorily carried out without requiring the Applicants to be detained in custody. 11. The only reason given in support of the claim that the Applicants are required to be detained in custody, is that the Computer on which the alleged forged letter was typed, is to be recovered. I find that the Investigating Agency has already come to a conclusion as to on which Computer, the said letter was typed and has taken charge of the said Computer. I am informed, that, on examining the said Computer, nothing suggesting that the forged letter in question, was typed on that Computer, could be found. 7 ABA 446.11.sxw 12. Mr. Warunjikar submitted that there is a C.D. in which the conversation between Accused No.3 and one Dr. Suryavanshi, a witness named in the Complaint has been recorded, and that, that C.D. shows that the Applicants are involved in the alleged offences and that, they are tampering with the evidence. I have gone through the papers of investigation and the nature of conversation, that is said to be containing in the said C.D. The order passed by the Court of Sessions indicates that the conversation is not audible. Even otherwise, the conversation does not appear to be of a conclusive nature. 13. It is also submitted by Mr. Warunjikar that the Applicants have filed forged affidavit during the course of these proceedings. He submits that the affidavit of Vilas Datta Mane, filed by the Applicants, in support of their present Application, shows that the signature of Mr. Mane appearing therein is different from his signature obtained by the Police on Mr. Mane’s statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8 ABA 446.11.sxw 14. It is worth observing here, that it is difficult to understand the occasion for obtaining the signature of Mr. Mane on the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. No conclusion can be arrived at, at this stage, based on the perceived difference, if any, between these two signatures. It may provide a ground for further inquiry into the matter, but by itself, will not be sufficient to refuse anticipatory bail to the applicants, by ignoring the other circumstances in their favour. Moreover, even assuming that such a false affidavit has been filed by the Applicants, that would be a separate matter, for which, the Applicants can be dealt with separately and for a distinct offence. 15. In this case, the opposition to the grant of bail is more from the complainant rather than the investigating agency. The opposition is basically on the claim that the applicants are actually guilty of the offences in question. Such conclusion can not be arrived at, at this stage; and even if, a prima-facie case exists against the applicants, that by itself, would not justify rejection of the anticipatory bail application. 9 ABA 446.11.sxw 16. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the fact that the investigation can be properly and effectively carried out even without requiring the Applicants to be detained in the custody, that no actual loss has been caused to the Complainant by the alleged offences, I think it is fit to grant the anticipatory bail to the Applicants. 17. In the event of their arrest in C.R.No. 48 of 2011, by the Akluj Police Station, the Applicants be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, with one surety in like amount, subject to the following conditions :- (i) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station and make themselves available for investigation/interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (ii) The Applicants shall not contact, meet or approach any of the prosecution witnesses, in any manner, whatsoever. (A.M. THIPSAY,J.)