1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1291 of 2010 Pawan v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv for applicant Mr Adgokar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 3.9.2010 1. Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 152/10 registered with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 205 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. 2nd Judicial Magistrate, FC, Chandrapur lodged report with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur on 16.6.2010 that on 27.11.2009 when one Suresh Balaji Bhoyar came to the Court to stand surety for one Sheikh Sameer, he learnt that some other person posing himself as Suresh Balaji Bhoyar has stood surety for Dhanraj Rangari, an accused in Criminal Case No. 582 of 2009. Looking to the seriousness of the matter, learned Magistrate herself made enquiry and it was revealed to her, inter-alia, that applicant Pawan Gedam who is Assistant Police Prosecutor had prepared papers and had submitted them through Advocate Kishor Manohar Karade impersonating some other person as Suresh Bhoyar. During 2 investigation, it was revealed that Sanjay Dashrath Shivarkar has acted as impostor. Offences have been registered against all concerned including the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there is no material on record to show that it was the applicant who prepared papers falsely in the name of Suresh Bhoyar and at any rate, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 4. Investigation is still pending. Statement of imposter Sanjay recorded by the police shows that applicant was instrumental in preparing papers and it was he who verified, but he did not sign on account of his position as APP. It appears from the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State that applicant is not cooperating with the investigating and he is said to be absconding. In my opinion, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Considering the nature of accusation, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. There is no merit in the application and the same is rejected accordingly. Judge. joshi