..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1683 OF 2008 Mr.Rabi Narayan Sahu. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.A.M.Saraogi, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.42 of 2007 of EOW, DCB CID, Unit-III, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that one Kamlesh Bhatt an employee of the company prepared false and bogus bills and invoices with the help of some other persons including Sumeet Navetia and submitted the same to the company and got an amount of Rs.9,56,40,146/- and thereby cheated the ..(2).. company to the aforesaid extent. 4. The applicant runs a business in the name of Rabi Master Weaving Works. He had opened an account in Veer Shaiva Co-operative Bank on 3.2.2005. One Arun Navetia uncle of one of the accused i.e. Sumeet Navetia, was the introducer for opening of the said account. During the course of investigation it was revealed that an amount of Rs.43,92,000/- was deposited in the account of the applicant from 30.11.2005 to 31.12.2005 i.e. within a period of one month and the same was withdrawn by issuance of cheques in favour of Navetia Yarn Private Limited. Thus it has been alleged that the applicant is in connivance with the accused in cheating the complainant’s company as he had aided and abetted the commission of the offence. 5. The applicant has not been able to give any explanation for these amounts in his account. The case of the applicant is that he is a poor weaving master. If the applicant is just a weaving master, such a huge amount could not have been deposited in his account. As stated earlier, the ..(3).. applicant has not given any explanation for the said amount being in his account. A faint attempt has been made to show that the amount was deposited by other accused in his name without the knowledge of the applicant and thereafter the other accused persons has forged the requisition slips and withdrawn the amount from his account without his knowledge. However, it is seen that transactions from the account of the applicant has taken place in the months of November & December, 2005. However, till 31.1.2008 the applicant did not make any complaint to the concerned bank regarding the transactions in his account and that his signatures were forged and the amounts were withdrawn. It is also pertinent to note that none of the cheques had been returned by the bank on account of difference in signatures and all the cheques were honoured by the bank. 6. In my view, the material collected by the prosecution in the present case is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the present applicant. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, P.V.Prabhakar Rao, P.V.Prabhakar Rao, reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 ..(4).. that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, application is rejected. 7. The lower Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order while deciding the application for regular bail or while deciding the trial. 8. On request of the learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant is granted time to surrender till 16th July, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)