1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3207 OF 2008 Mr.Ashokkumar Arunkumar Shukla .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent -- Shri A.M. Saraogi for the Applicant. Shri K.V. Saste, AGP for Respondent. -- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J DATED : 17TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. Heard Shri Saraogi, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Shri Saste, APP for the Respondent State. 2. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R. No.179 of 2008 of Boisar Police Station, District – Thane. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and seven others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 407, 408 read with 34 of India Penal Code. 2 3. The complaint is lodged by Shripad Gopalrao Talvelkar, Manager of D.C.Text Decor Co. stating that accused no.6 Prakashchandra Ambika Rai, who is engaged in transport business, had a contract with D. C. Text Decor Co. Accused No.6 was given a contract to transport furnace oil from Bharat Petroleum, HPCL to the said D.C. Text Decor Co., Boisar. In the complaint, it is specifically stated that the furnace oil transported through accused no.6's tanker was found to be of impure quality and hence an inquiry was made by the Complainant with his staff, boiler attendant and other employees. In the said inquiry, it transpired that along with accused no.6, the boiler attendant and tanker drivers were involved in committing the said offence. Hence, the complaint was lodged with the Boiser Police Station. It is alleged that accused no.6 was hand in gloves with the present Applicant and he used to unload furnace oil from his tankers at the Depot of the Applicant, who in turn, used to sale it illegally in the open market. The statement of Narsingh Radhyeshyamji Ramdular Yadav, who was the Driver of one of the tankers of accused no.6 was recorded and he has stated that he unloaded furnace oil from 10 tankers at the Depot of the Applicant on different occasions. The witness Narsingh Yadav further stated in his statement that he was doing the said work as per the instructions of accused no.6 and his son Mintu. This is how, according to the prosecution, all the 3 Accused including the present Applicant have committed the offence under Sections 407 and 408 read with Section 34 of IPC. It, further appears that, during the pendency of this application, the Court, while granting time as prayed by learned APP, vide order dated 24th September, 2008, had directed the Applicant to attend the concerned Police Station and co-operate with the investigating officer between 26th September, 2008 and 6th October, 2008 every day between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer in his affidavit has stated that despite the directions, the Applicant did not cooperate with the investigation and, therefore, they need custody of the Applicant to interrogate him. It is further stated that the anticipatory bail application filed by accused no.6 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 1st August, 2008. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has confirmed it. In the circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The Application is, therefore, rejected. 4. On the request of the learned Counsel for the Applicant, the time to surrender is granted upto 25th October, 2008. 4 5. While passing this order, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the Trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. D.B. BHOSALE, J