IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2009 Shri Sanjay Devidas Sathe ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.J.Shekhar i/b. M/s.J.Shekhar & Co. for the Applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. The applicant who is a businessman is carrying on business of sand excavation. He had been granted the contract by the Collector for excavation of sand at a particular place. Subsequently, the said site was changed. The applicant paid an amount of Rs.9 lakhs for excavation of the sand and accordingly, the receipt books were given to him and on showing or tendering the receipt from the receipt books, the applicant’s employees were permitted to excavate the sand. 3. On 3rd December, 2008, the Tahsildar carried out - 2 - a surprise raid at a spot where the sand was being excavated. He raided 10 trucks and the driver of the said truck gave the receipt on the basis of which he was excavating the said sand. The Tahsildar made enquiry with the Mining Officer and found that the said receipt was forged and fabricated. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against the present applicant after a lapse of 15 days. It is alleged that the applicant had used forged and fabricated receipts. The trucks, however, were not seized. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that a false case has been registered against him in view of the dispute between the applicant and the Collector. He submitted that Show Cause Notice had been issued by the Collector asking him why the contract awarded against him should not be terminated. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal and obtained an order of status quo. When the alleged incident took place, there was stay order granted by the Commissioner to the order passed by the Collector and as such, he was even otherwise legally entitled to excavate the sand from the - 3 - said place. He also had relied on the receipt books which were given to him and submitted that there was no reason for him to use forged and fabricated receipt. 5. The learned APP for the State submits that the receipt books which were seized from the driver of the truck indicated that the name of the applicant was printed on the said receipt book and the number of the receipt book was fabricated. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant was directly involved in the commission of the said offence. 6. In my view, taking into consideration the fact that, firstly the dispute is pending between the applicant and the Collector and that during that time, the sand was seized from the truck, the applicant was authorised to excavate the sand, there was no necessity on the part of the applicant to forge the said documents. There is no material on record to indicate that the applicant’s name is, in any way, connected with the drivers of the truck who were excavating the sand. Thirdly, the applicant still has not entirely used those - 4 - receipt books which were given to him by the Collector. Fourthly, in my view, under these circumstances, even otherwise, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. The driver and the cleaner have not been arrested. The trucks also have not been seized. The alleged fabricated receipts have been seized by the police. Under these circumstances, therefore, further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Fifthly, on the directions given by this court, the applicant had attended the police station for a period of one week and lastly, that the applicant’s being framed at the instance of his rival sand excavators also cannot be ruled out. Under these circumstances, the application for anticipatory bail is granted. 7. The applicant be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.331/2008 registered at Pandharpur Police Station, in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant, however, shall report to the said police station as and when called and shall co-operate with the - 5 - police. 8. The application is allowed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)