IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4969 OF 2009 Pooja Paresh Thakkar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ---- Shri S.K.Shinde for Applicant Shri Y.M. Nakhwa -APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. ---- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with an offence punishable under sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, on the complaint registered by the Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana . 3. It is alleged that the Applicant is a partner of M/s. Ashapura Brokers along with her husband Paresh Thakkar and they had purchased sugar worth Rs.10.5 crores from the sugar factory. However, the said amount was repaid and the cheques issued by the husband of the Applicant were dishonoured and the complaint has been filed by the Kharkhana under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against her husband. A separate complaint has also been filed against the Applicant and her husband for the aforesaid offence. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is not the partner of M/s. Ashapura Brokers and that she was the proprietress for a limited period in 2003 and thereafter her husband was the proprietor of the said firm and she is not connected in any way with the business of the said firm. 5. The learned Counsel has invited my attention to the certificate issued by the bank where the husband of the Applicant had opened the said account which states that the Applicant’s husband is the proprietor of the said firm. The Shops and Establishments licence also indicates that Applicant’s husband alone is the proprietor of the firm and similarly a letter at page 18 of the compilation indicates that the Applicant’s husband is the proprietor of the said firm. In the said letter he had admitted his liability and had assured the factory to repay the said amount. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has also invited my attention to the complaint wherein the Karkhana has specifically stated at several places that the husband of the Applicant was the proprietor of the said firm. 6. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submitted that in the writ petition which was filed by the Applicant for quashing the complaint against her had stated that she was the proprietress of M/s.Ashapura Brokers till 2003- 2004. He, therefore, submitted that the Applicant was connected with the dealings of the said firm for some time and therefore, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary since the money has not been recovered from the Applicant’s husband. 7. In my view, there is no material to indicate that the Applicant was the proprietress of the said proprietary firm during the time when the said transaction had taken place between the said proprietary firm and the Karkhana. Therefore, the Applicant is entitled to get the interim protection during the investigation of the case. Merely because the Applicant is the wife of the main accused, who had purchased sugar from the sugar factory, the prosecution is not entitled to arrest her on that count. The Applicant, under these circumstances, deserves to be released on bail for a limited period. The Applicant, in the meantime, shall report to Niphad Police Station for a period of one week from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and shall cooperate with the police. The Applicant, in the meantime, shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with C.R. No. 76/2007 registered with Niphad Police Station in a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The said order shall continue for a period of two months. If no material is found against the Applicant, she may apply for continuation of the interim protection granted by this Court. 8. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)