spb/- 1 26-7-3106-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3106 OF 2010 (Converted from W.P. No.2451/2009) The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant/Petitioner. Vs. Sujauddin Jainul Abdin Shaikh & Ors. .. Respondents. ...... Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for Respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Shailesh Kantharia i/by Dinesh Gupta for Respondent No.3. Mr. Shri Pravin H. Padawe i/by K.S.Patil for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Mr. Shri M.G.Shukla i/by Girish Kulkarni for Respondent No.7. Mr. Shailesh Kantharia for Respondent No.8. ...... CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 26th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 This application, under section 482 of Cr.P.C, is filed by the State, challenging the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, refusing to grant police custody of the accused persons and also the order dated 21st July, 2009 passed by the same learned Magistrate, granting bail to the accused persons. spb/- 2 26-7-3106-10.sxw 3 The prosecution case is that from Vile Parle Post Office some unknown persons had stolen 174 cheques and by putting false signatures, encashed some of those cheques and withdrew the amount of Rs. 15,28,263/-. This was discovered when a written report was lodged by two account holders. Accused No.8, who was Post Master, was in the custody of those cheques. The offence was registered as Crime No. 287 of 2009 at Vile Parle Police Station on the basis of the written report lodged by the Assistant Superintendent, Post Office, Mumbai. All the eight accused persons were arrested on different dates and the learned Magistrate had also granted police custody in respect of each of them for some time. On 20th July, 2009, the Investigating Officer submitted remand report, seeking extension of police custody for maximum period as could be possible. The learned Magistrate refused extension of PCR, observing that proper grounds were not given and even police report, after the previous PCR, was not submitted by the Investigating Officer. 4 On perusal of the remand report dated 20th July, 2009, accused no. 1 and accused no. 7 appear to be main culprits. Accused No. 1 had given some of the cheques to other accused for encashment. Similarly, accused no. 7 had also given some cheques to accused nos. 5 and 6 for spb/- 3 26-7-3106-10.sxw enchashment. Accused Nos. 2 to 6 had acted as agents for the purpose of encashment of the cheques on payment of certain percentage of the amount as commission to them. Accused No.1 was arrested on 13.07.2009. Accused no. 8 was also arrested on the same date. Accused no.3 was arrested on 15.7.2009. Accused nos. 4,5, 6 were arrested on 16.7.2009 and accused no. 2 and 7 were arrested on 17.7.2009. Each accused was in the custody upto 20.07.2009 when further PCR was refused. It appears that accused nos. 1 and 8 were in the police custody for about 8 days. Accused no. 7, who was one of the main culprits, was in the police custody just for three days i.e. from 17.7.2009 to 20.07.2009. In respect of accused no. 7, it was stated that the police wanted to interrogate him as to how he had secured those cheques from the Post Office. As far as other accused persons were concerned, the police wanted to recover money which they had received. It is an admitted fact that while granting bail, the learned Magistrate had directed the accused persons to attend the police station on every Sunday and that is going on for last one year. The learned counsel for the accused persons stated that accused persons have punctually complied with that direction. After taking instructions from the concerned I.O., the learned APP also does not deny this position. spb/- 4 26-7-3106-10.sxw 5 Taking into consideration these circumstances, I find that as far as accused nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are concerned, they were in the police custody for sufficient period and the police had also sufficient time to interrogate them even after police custody. As far as accused no. 7 is concerned, he was in the police custody for three days and thereafter, he was attending the police station. After taking instructions from the I.O., the learned APP concedes that the purpose of investigation would be served if the accused no.7 is directed to attend the police station every day for a month with direction to co-operate with the investigation. The learned counsel for the accused no. 7 has no objection to the same. In view of the above facts and circumstances, following directions will meet the ends of justice. 6 Accused No. 7 Paresh Gangadhar Burke is directed to attend Ville Parle Police Station every day for one month from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. from 28th July, 2010. The police shall interrogate him and he shall co-operate with the police in the investigation. The application shall stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. [ J.H. BHATIA, J.] spb/- 5 26-7-3106-10.sxw