1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5061 OF 2009 Mrs. Swati Vishwas Puanik .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mr. S.R. Chitnis, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for the applicant. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with the offence which is registered with the Thane Nagar Police Station vide C.R. No.166 of 2009 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. Applicant is an advocate and was working as Legal Adviser on the Panel of Bank of India, Thane Branch. A complaint was lodged by Mr. Vishwanath Sharma, Assistant Manager, Bank of India on 10/08/2009 against following persons viz. (i) Mr. Ashok Balu Dabhade, (ii) Mr. Nitin Ganpat Sawant, (iiI) Mr. R.P. Shah - the Proprietors of M/s Shivam Builders & Developers, (iv) present applicant, (v) Joginder Singh and (vi) Mr. Ashok Saita. 4. It is alleged that accused No.1 Ashok Balu Dabhade applied for housing loan of Rs 12,55,000/- in October, 2006 from Thane Branch of Bank of India and in the application he represented that he wanted to purchase residential flat No. 601 in Vanita Apartment, near Malhar Hotel, Naupada, Thane from M/s Shivam Builders and Developers. Alongwith the Loan Application, he submitted (i) payment slip, (ii) agreement duly registered dated 20/02/2006, (iii) copy of the income tax return (iv) copy of the ration card and (v) payment slip of witness. Applicant, as a legal adviser, was to verify the documents submitted to the Bank for the loan proposal by taking search of the record from the Office 3 of the Sub-Registrar, Thane. A report was submitted dated 06/10/2006 as a title report and search report to the said Bank. In the report, she mentioned that she had verified the documents submitted for loan proposal by taking search of the record of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Thane for 30 years and gave an opinion that the title was clear and marketable title free from any encumbrances. On the recommendation and the certificate issued by the applicant, the Bank sanctioned loan of Rs 12,55,000/- to accused No.1 – Ashok Dabhade which was repayable within 18 years @ 9% interest. A cheque was issued by the Bank dated 12/12/2006 in favour of M/s Shivam Builders and Developers. 5. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the description of the property (CTS No.33/01, Tika No.21) which is mentioned in the agreement submitted to the Bank and verified by the present applicant does not have any building by name “Vanita” and it is not developed by M/s Shivam Builders and Developers. Further, it transpired that the documents which have been examined by the applicant as per report are also not scrutinized and verified by the 4 applicant. Further, during investigation, it is revealed that xerox copy of the title certificate given by Shri Anant Mahajan is also a forged document and it transpired that no such advocate by name Shri Anant Mahajan was residing at the address mentioned in the letter-head of the certificate and the statement of the original owner Shri Nitin Kamte is also recorded wherein it is mentioned that the said land is not given for development to any M/s Shivam Builders and Developers. Further, registration number of the document viz. No.954/2006 shown on the forged certificate of Advocate Mahajan is also not a correct number because the original document registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar at Sr. No.954/2006 is a different document executed between one Sunanda Deshmukh of M/s Shivam Builders and Developers and the original accused Ashok Dabhade and it pertains to some other property which is described as Room No.201, 2nd Floor, Raghu Shanti Apartment, Navapada, Thane. Investigation also revealed that the Bank’s cheque which was issued by the complainant – Bank in the name of M/s Shivam Builders & Developers was deposited in an account which was opened by the co-accused at Dombivili by 5 submitting forged documents and the said amount was withdrawn. 6. Mr. Chitnis, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently urged that the report which was given by the applicant is not a valid security within the meaning of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the applicant could not be arraigned as an accused for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the original complainant had not made any complaint against the present applicant. He also invited my attention to the letter written by the original complainant to the Investigating Officer in which he has stated that the Bank had no grievance against the present applicant and the two Bank Managers viz. Joginder Singh & Ashok Saita. He also invited my attention to the affidavit affirmed by the original complainant wherein he has stated that the Bank does not wish to proceed against the present applicant and the said two other persons. He, therefore, submitted that if the Bank did not have any 6 complaint against the present applicant, there was no occasion for the Investigating Agency to arraign the present applicant as an accused. He also invited my attention to the affidavit of the original complainant wherein he has mentioned that names of the present applicant and two other Bank Managers of the Bank of India were not dictated by him to the Police and the name of the said persons have been recorded by the Police on their own. He also submitted that the contention of the Police that the said Mahajan is not an advocate is also not correct since, according to him, the said Ashok Mahajan is an advocate who is practicing at Aurangabad and his name is shown in the roll of advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Maharashtra. He further submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary and, therefore, applicant is entitled for an order of anticipatory bail. 7. The submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant cannot be accepted. In my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The Bank, relying on the certificate issued by the present 7 applicant, had granted loan to the original accused Ashok Dabhade who had utilized the said amount after depositing it in the Bank at Dombivili and, later on, the said amount was withdrawn by him. There is prima facie material to indicate that Flat No.601 in Vanita Apartment is not in existence and the said Building has not been constructed by M/s Shivam Builders & Developers which is evident from the statement of the owner of the said plot Shri Nitin Kamte. The letter- head of Ashok Mahajan also prima facie appears to be a forged and fabricated document. In my view, all these allegations which are made against the applicant on the basis of the facts which were revealed during the course of investigation, therefore, clearly disclose that the offence alleged to have been committed by the original accused is of a serious nature and in the course of the investigation the name of the present applicant has figured alongwith the material which indicates her involvement in the commission of the offence. Taking into consideration these facts, therefore, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 8 8. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant seeks protection for a period of seven days. This request is declined. 10. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)