..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3102 OF 2008 Vinayak Pandit Bonde. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Sudatta Patil, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 17th September, 2008. DATED : 17th September, 2008. DATED : 17th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-87 of 2008 of Badlapur Police Station, District : Thane. The said case is under Sections 420, 406 of IPC. 3. The applicant is the Vice-President of a credit society. In the FIR specific instances have been stated in respect of the applicant. The material on record shows that on 29.3.2007 a ..(2).. invertor was purchased by the society. The bill shows Rs.20,000/-, however, the applicant issued cheque for Rs.26,000/-. On 27.7.2007 stationery was purchased. Cheque No.26505 for Rs.55,300/- was issued. The said cheque was signed by the applicant. However, there is no entry in respect of the same on record. On 3.9.2007 cheque No.28707 for the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was issued in the name of one person Namdeo. In the record, it was also shown that said amount was paid to Namdeo. However, the investigation has revealed that Namdeo has died much prior to the said date. The said cheque was also signed by the applicant. 4. The investigation in the present case is going on. Moreover in my view, the FIR and the other material collected by the prosecution in the present case is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the present applicant. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate Directorate Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point ..(3).. out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 5. On request of the learned Advocate for the applicant, the applicant is granted time to surrender upto 22nd September, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)