1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION 2536/2010 Ravi Kiran Ganpatro Rasal Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.H.H.Ponda i/b Mr.O.A.Siddiqui for applicant Mrs.V.R.Bhosale, APP Mr.Devang Sanghavi for Ori.Complainant CORAM:MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. (VACATION COURT DATE :19th MAY, 2010. P.C. . This application is filed against the order rejecting the anticipatory bail passed by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Bombay . Wife of the applicant/accused has lodged the F.I.R.on 28/4/2010 against the applicant/accused for the offence of misappropriation under section 406 and for forgery under section 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute of divorce and maintenance is pending in the Family Court, Bandra between the complainant and the applicant/accused. At the time of the hearing on the point of the maintainance the accused has produced the statement of accounts showing the 2 transactions of the shares in order to establish the sound financial condition of the complainant. However, when the complainant went through the statement, realised that she had never entered into such transaction and she is not aware of the sale of the shares which were in fact owned by her and she had handed over those shares to the complainant in good faith . This led her to lodge the F.I.R. against the accused at Goregaon police station . The offence is registered at C.R.No.141/2010 . The accused had approached the Sessions Court for an anticipatory bail and at the time of rejecting the said application on 4th May, 2010 direction was given to the police to give 48 hours notice to the applicant/accused. Thereafter the police issued notice to the applicant/accused . Then he again approached to the Sessions Court by filing anticipatory bail application which was rejected on 8/5/2010. 2] The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that though the shares were handed over by the complainant to the applicant/accused ,the complainant was aware of the opening of the DEMAT account in her name and 3 the transaction had started in the year 2003 . It is further submitted that the complainant was aware of the financial transactions and accordingly she had filed the income tax returns with her signature which is shown on page -33 of the petition. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant/ accused is ready to co-operate the police on the point of sale of the shares and the record is available with the said companies. He submits that there is dispute regarding the existence of some shares which the complainant alleges. It is argued that the custodial interrogation is not required to investigate such kind of offence. 3] The learned A.P.P.opposes the application and submits that the applicant/accused is not co-operating the police. 4] The learned counsel appearing for the original complainant submits that the applicant/accused has forged not only the accounts but also the returns filed to the income tax department and has opened a joint account in the I.C.I.C.I bank , Fort branch, Mumbai by forgery. He has committed serious offence of misappropriation of the property of the 4 complainant and the police needs to interrogate and for which his custody is required. 5] Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the F.I.R.and the documents .The offence is mainly related to the share transactions and the details of the transactions can be investigated by the police by approaching the concerned companies as well as the share broker. The Court takes note that there is marital discord and petition between the parties pending before the Family Court . It is mentioned that the police needs to obtain specimen handwriting and also natural hand writing of the applicant/accused . The nature of investigation does not require custodial interrogation , however, full co-operation of the applicant/accused is necessary. Hence the application is allowed on following conditions. O R D E R In the event of arrest, the applicant/accused be released on his furnishing P.R.bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The applicant/accused to attend the concerned 5 police station in the evening from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. from 19/5/2010 to 28/5/2010 and after that whenever required by the police and to co-operate the investigating agency . The applicant/accused will not leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai and Mumbai suburbs without prior permission of this Court till filing of the chargesheet. The learned counsel for applicant/accused submits that provisionally cash bail of Rs.30,000/-be allowed. Provisional cash bail of Rs.30,000/- is allowed . The applicant/accused to produce the surety within a week from that date. Application is disposed of accordingly. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)