1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1826 OF 2010 (Nisar Khan Abdul Jabbar and another .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.A. Jaiswal, Advocate for the applicants. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 02ND DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicants are seeking regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.141/2010 registered with the Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur. Learned Counsel for the applicant by inviting my attention to the complaint lodged with Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur dated 12.10.2010 by Anand Prakash Mehadiya, submits that the allegation made in the complaint that by opening a forged and fake account in his name, a cheque was deposited in that account and amount was withdrawn. He further submits that neither there is mention of the name of the applicants nor any material is collected against them and in view of the fact that the applicants are behind the bars for more than two months, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. To support his contentions, the learned Counsel for the applicants places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Dhingra .v. NCT of Delhi (reported in 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1882) and the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gurinder Singh @ Bobby .v. State of Punjab (reported in III (1999) CCR 139). Per contra, learned APP by filing reply has vehemently opposed the application. Learned APP has also produced the material collected by the investigating agency before the Court. From the perusal of the reply and the material 2 produced on record, it is revealed that these applicants along with other persons have prepared fabricated documents and on the basis of those documents, an account was opened with Gandhibag Sahakari Bank, Nagpur. The material also reveals that applicant No.2 who was an employee of the complainant and having blank cheques in his possession. The applicant No.2 was assigned with the job by the complainant relating to financial transaction and as such the cheques used to be in the possession of applicant No.2. The material collected by the investigating agency reveals that applicant No.2 with the help of other accused persons by opening fake bank account, misused the cheques. It is also revealed that the money which was withdrawn against the cheques was used by the applicants for purchase of certain goods, vehicles, ornaments, jewellery clothes etc., through Memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned APP submits that it is an apprehension of the investigating agency that there may be a large amount involved in the said scam. He further submits that the bank employee namely the Manager of the Chitnavispura Branch is also involved in the said crime. He further submits that there is possibility that some other persons may also be involved who have helped these accused and if the applicants are released on bail, they may tamper with the evidence and it may cause hurdle in further investigation. On perusal of the material placed before me, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the applicants can be enlarged on bail. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.