IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1893 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1893 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1893 OF 2008 Sandeep Ravindra Vaidya ..Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr A. P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Shaunak Mehta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr S. R. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 26.6.2008. DATED: 26.6.2008. DATED: 26.6.2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This applicant is seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his/her arrest in C.R.No. I-39 of 2008 registered with Jawahar Police Station, Thane for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint filed by Mr Ravindra Atmaram Sawant. 3. This application is moved after having suffered an adverse order at the hands of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, whereby the application for anticipatory bail came to be rejected holding that documents filed revealed that no construction work of a road was carried out. For completion of construction of road amount of Rs. 9 lacs was received by the present applicant and misappropriated the same. The false and fabricated documents were produced to get the bills sanctioned. In this case, the applicant is a contractor. He is not only the person involved in this racket but certain Government officials of the Department are also involved. Some of them were refused anticipatory bail. No exception can be made in this case. In order to trace the racket, it would be necessary for the Investigating Officer to investigate the crime registered against the applicant and if necessary even by resorting to custodial interrogation. 4. In view of the above matter, considering the serious offence of the misappropriation of public funds, causing substantial loss to the State, no case is made out to entertain this application. Application is, therefore, rejected. 5. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as finding or expression on merits of the case at the time of trial. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE