sat 1 cri.appln 1074-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1074 OF 2011 Sanjay Shamrao Patil ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.S.R. Chitnis, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.H.S. Venegavkar for the Applicant. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. (VACATION COURT JUDGE) DECEMBER 27, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Heard Mr.Chitnis, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Mr.Hingorani, learned Additional PP for the State. 2 The applicant has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in CR No.117/2011 of Shahpuri Police Station, Kolhapur, for the offences punishable u/ss. 420, 468, 471, 409 r/w. 34 of IPC. The applicant had earlier applied for grant of bail u/s. 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court. The same was rejected. Thereafter, he sat 2 cri.appln 1074-2011 moved this Court. This Court also refused to grant him relief u/s. 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant had also moved the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 20th July, 2011. “Special Leave Petition is dismissed.” 3 Mr.Chitnis, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted the co-accused has been granted regular bail after arrest, on depositing certain amount allegedly misappropriated. The applicant is also ready to deposit Rs.50 lakhs as against the claim of Rs.30 lakhs. It is submitted that as such, the applicant has shown his bonafides. 4 Learned Additional PP Mr.Hingorani opposes the application on the ground that the applicant has now moved this Court after failing to get relief from the Supreme Court. 5 After having considered the conduct of the sat 3 cri.appln 1074-2011 applicant and after having noted the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not think that the applicant's application for grant of anticipatory bail u/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is worth entertaining. In my view, in fact, it should be dismissed in limine. In any event, the applicant has evaded custodial investigation for a considerable long time. In my considered opinion, recovery of the amount is not the purpose of investigation. The purpose of investigation is to investigate the allegations and get the offender punished according to law. The monetary implications are secondary in the cases of criminal investigation. 6 Hence, the application stands rejected. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)