* 1 * ABA.555.2011 12.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2011 Chandrashekhar S. Kuvre .....Applicant V/S. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ......Respondents Mr. Inderprakash Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State-respondent no.1. Mr. Momin Solkar, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 12th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is a second applciation filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail, his first application having been dismissed by the Sessions Court by its order dated 16th June, 2011. The applicant apprehends his arrest in MECR No. 55 of 2011 in C.R. No. 312 of 2011 registered with Juhu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471, 420 read with 114 Indian Penal Code which has been registered pursuant to the order passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri Mumbai under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code on the private complaint filed by the complainant-Mukund Mohanlal Goradia. According to the applicant and his mother, a lady by name Sunita Lala was running a beauty * 2 * ABA.555.2011 12.7.2011 parlour by name Classic Beauty Parlour from the premises of Surajben Compound. The mother of the applicant claims to have entered into a partnership deed with Sunita Lala. Later, Sunita Lala retired from the partnership and the certificate of registration of the establishment issued in the name of Sunita Lala came to be transferred to the name of mother of the applicant. The mother of the applicant since then started selling onions and potatoes from the premises. The complaint, however, alleges that the person by name Sunita Lala never existed. The applicant and his mother have forged all the documents in respect of the premises by making signature of a fictitious person, Sunita Lala on the documents. These facts were revealed to the Sessions Court in the report of the Investigation officer. Based on the facts, the Sessions Court expressed an opinion that prima-facie it appears that the applicant has committed forgery in respect of the documents concerning the premises and for that purpose custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The observations of the Sessions Court are correct. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the police must get an opportunity to investigate into the complaint including an opportunity to interrogate the applicant. Hence, the application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 3 * ABA.555.2011 12.7.2011