IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.366 OF 2009 Mohd. Rais Ayub Patel ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Milan Desai for Applicant Shri D.P. Adsule, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 24TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with C.R. No.1 of 2009 registered with Samatanagar Police Station. The Applicant was arrested on 2.1.2009 and he has been remanded to the police custody and, thereafter he was remanded to the judicial custody. 3. It is alleged that the complainant is a operational manager with the courier company, which supplies their personnel to M/s.Blue Dart Services Ltd. to deliver courier consignments, which includes credit cards, debit cards and other documents. It is the case of the prosecution that the credit card, which was to be delivered to one Pravinkumar Singh was not delivered to him yet he received a monthly statement of bill of Rs.58,000/- towards purchases made against the said credit card. The person, who was concerned with the delivery of this card stated that on 6.11.2008, he had delivered the said card to Mr.Pravinkumar Singh after verifying his identity. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that there is no material on record to indicate the involvement of the present Applicant and the investigation is over. 5. This submission cannot be accepted. The recovery has been made at the instance of the present Applicant and further recovery has to be made from the wife of the Applicant. 6. Taking into consideration the serious allegations against the Applicant, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the Applicant. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant strenuously urged that no fruitful purpose would be served in detaining the Applicant in the custody and that would amount to pre-trial permission. 8. This statement cannot be accepted. The investigation is still going on. The Applicant would be entitled for apply for bail after the chargesheet is filed. Hence, the application is not entertained at this state and is rejected. 9. Application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.