1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4026 OF 2007 Manoj Vishnu Lahamge .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.H.S. Venegavkar for the applicant. Mr.U.V. Nikam APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 9th January 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with crime registered under C.R.No. 193 of 2007 with Sarkarwada police station, Nashik punishable under sections 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC. 2 3. A "No objection" certificate from PWD was required for the purpose of obtaining an excise licence for the hotel "Nicky" belonging to the wife of the applicant. According to the prosecution, a forged "No objection certificate" bearing a forged signature of an executive engineer of PWD, Nashik was submitted by the applicant to the excise authorities for obtaining the licence. According to the prosecution, custody of the applicant is required for the purpose of investigation into the crime of the said forgery. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the wife of the applicant who is the owner of the hotel and has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 17th October 2007 passed in Criminal Application no.784 of 2007. He submitted that since the main accused i.e. the wife of the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. In my view, submission is misconceived. 5. The FIR dated 11th August 2007 clearly mentions that the "No objection" letter was submitted 3 by the applicant on behalf of his wife. Thus it was the applicant and not his wife who submitted the forged "No objection" letter. It is therefore the applicant who only would be able to explain the possession of the forged letter and submission thereof to the excise authorities. Secondly, while deciding the criminal application no.784 of 2007, the circumstance that Suvarna, the wife of the applicant was a lady appears to have weighed with the learned Sessions Judge for granting her the anticipatory bail. That circumstance is not applicable in respect of the applicant. The applicant therefore cannot claim parity. Presence of the applicant appears to be necessary for custodial interrogation for investigation of the crime. 6. In the circumstances, application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J)