1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI.APPLN.NO. 2638 OF 2009 APPLICANTS : 1. BABLUSINGH S/O.SARKALSINGH BAVRI, AGED ABOUT 29 YRS., OCC.:CONTRACTOR, R/O. KHADAN, TQ. & DISTT. AKOLA. 2. SANJAY MURLIDHAR DASHMUKHE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCU.: CONTRACTOR, R/O. KHADKI, TAH.& DISTT. AKOLA. // VERSUS // NON-APPLICANT : THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. P.S.O. BARSHITAKLI, DISTT. AKOLA. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------- Mr S.D.Chopde, Advocate for Applicants. Shri Anoop Parihar, APP for Respondent. CORAM : A. P BHANGALE, J. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this application the applicant pray for anticipatory bail in Crime No.80 of 2009, reported at Barshi Takali Police Station, District : Akola under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 8th July, 2009, at the instance of complainant Arifabi Sayyed Shabbir. The accusation against the applicant is that a well was constructed under 2 contract by present applicant Bablusingh. He had demanded advance sum of Rs.20,000/-. Applicant Sanjay Deshmukh who misused the trust, took the cheque book from the complainant and wrote in figures an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The cheque was drawn in favour of applicant Bablusingh. The cheque in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- was signed by President as well as Secretary of “Mahajal Yojana” (Village Water Supply and Clealiness Committee). According to the complainant, the cheque was collected by the applicant Bablusingh in front of President and of the Audit Inspection Committee which was drawn by the applicant Sanjay Deshmukh in the sum of Rs.20,000/- on 20th June, 2009 (cheque bearing No. 0642249) drawn on Akola Gramin Bank, Rajnankhed Branch. A voucher was also signed accordingly by applicant Bablusingh in the sum of Rs.20,000/- but it revealed subsequently that on the basis of cheque No. 0642249 the applicant Bablusingh had withdrawn Rs. 4,00,000/- extra although the cheque was drawn in the sum of Rs.20,000/-. The sum of Rs.4,20,000/- appears to have been inserted in that cheque in order to misappropriate and cheat the Government in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. In these circumstances, the accusation under Section 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 have been levelled against the applicant. 3. Earlier, Additional Sessions Judge, Akola by order dated 10.07.2009 rejected the anticipatory bail 3 concluding that investigation should not be interfered with in view of the accusation of forgery of the cheque issued. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant wants to counter the reply of the respondent to deny the allegations alleging that Secretary, President and other members of the Committee were demanding their commission and that the complainant had in fact issued the cheque of Rs.4,20,000/- in favour of the applicant Bablusingh and he placed reliance on Gurubaksh Singh V. State of Punjab, reported at AIR 1980 SC 1633 in order to submit that anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the applicant. Observation in paragraph 19 were referred to argue that mainly because the investigating agency wants to collect incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender anticipatory bail should not be granted. The Court further observed that it is the right and duty of the police to investigate into the offences and therefore, Courts should be careful not to exercise their powers in a manner which is calculated to cause interference therewith. The Court also observed that the functions of the Judiciary and the police are in a sense complementary and not overlapping. 5. Be that as it may, in the investigations into serious accusation in preliminary stage larger interest of the society to indict real culprits cannot be overlooked. 4 From the material collected during the investigation so far it cannot be said that accusation are baseless or needs no investigation. In fact, by trying to file counter affidavit to the reply of the respondent, the applicants have only shown their interest to deny the accusation. Under these circumstances, if the investigation is hampered at its preliminary stage, larger interest of society may suffer. In my opinion, anticipatory bail in such cases cannot be granted. It is open for the applicant to apply for bail on merits, consequently the application is rejected. 6. The learned Advocate for the applicant, at this stage, states that both the applicants will surrender themselves before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshi Takli, District : Akola on 14th August, 2009. 7. If the applicants surrendered themselves the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshi Takli may consider their plea on merits in accordance with law. After such surrender their plea for refund of amount of deposit (Rs.75,000/- ) will be considered. JUDGE RR.