1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2645 OF 2010 Neelam Rajendra Singh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Imtiyaz I.Patel, for applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde, for respondents State. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 2nd JUNE, 2010. P.C. : By this application, prayer is made for enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in respect of Crime No.I-172 of 2009 registered with Wagale Estate Police Station, District Thane for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 415, 418, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 2] The complaint was filed on 27 th May, 2009. By order dated 6 th July, 2009, the learned Magistrate directed the Wagale Estate Police Station to investigate the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2645-10.sxw 2 Pursuant to the said direction, the statements of five persons are recorded. The learned APP has produced the papers for my perusal. 3] Mr.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant was the President of the Credit Society for the period from 15 th June, 2002 to 15 th June, 2007. All the affairs of the said Society were managed by the Managing Committee members of the said Society and the applicant has no role to play. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are totally false and in respect of the said subject matter, the suit is pending in the Civil Court. The Civil Court will decide the nature of transactions. He further submitted that the applicant’s husband is already arrested and, therefore, her custodial interrogation is not necessary. He submits that the husband of applicant was the Chairman of Credit Society. He further submits that the applicant is ready to abide by whatsoever conditions this Court deems appropriate to impose. 4] On the other hand, Ms.Shinde, learned APP for respondent State, submits that the applicant was President of the Society and was the authorised signatory on behalf of the Society. Paragraph Nos.5, 7 and 9 of the complaint clearly makes out a case of specific instances attributing to the role of the 2645-10.sxw 3 applicant. 5] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the statements recorded so far, in my opinion, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prima facie, the allegations made against the applicant in the complaint are of specific nature and, therefore, this is not a case for enlarging the applicant by granting anticipatory bail. Application is rejected. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] 2645-10.sxw