..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2345 OF 2008 1. Mr.Zubair Aziz Nachan, & 2. Mr.Zeeshan Mukhtar Divkar. ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.R.Y.Mirza, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 28th July, 2008. DATED : 28th July, 2008. DATED : 28th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-46 of 2008 of Padgha police station, District - Thane. The said case is under Sections 406, 409 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. Both the applicants are the members of Grampanchayat Borivali. There was a pipeline of water supply installed in the year, 1956 for village Padgha and Borivali. The said pipeline was 3963 mtrs. long having diameter of 100 mm. The case of the prosecution is that the applicants sold this ..(2).. abandoned pipeline and misappropriated some of the sale proceeds thereafter to their own use. The applicants showed that they sold the pipelines weighing 20560 kgs.and that they received Rs.3,21,598/- for the said 20560 kgs. of pipelines. However, the prosecution case is that actually the pipelines weighed 93645 kgs. and sale proceeds even at the rate given by the applicants would come to Rs.14,79,591/-. However, only Rs.3,21,598/- was deposited by the applicants in the grampanchayat. The report of the expert shows that the weight of the pipelines is about 93645 kgs.. However, the case of the accused is that the pipeline only weighed 20560 kgs.. 4. Mr.Mirza, the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there are only two gate passes relating to the pipelines and the two gate passes dated 10.1.2007 and 31.1.2007 show that only total 20560 kgs. of pipelines was taken out. However, looking to the report of the expert, it is seen that the pipelines weighed about 93645 kgs.. The investigation is going on. In my view, the custody of the applicants would be necessary to find ..(3).. out the nature and extent of the racket and to find out who else is involved in the offence. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 5. On request of learned Advocate for the applicants, the applicants are granted time to surrender upto 13th August, 2008. It would be open also to the applicants to surrender before the appropriate Court and apply for regular bail. 6. Criminal Application is disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)