1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1166 OF 2010 (Bhupendra s/o. Premsingh Thakur .vs. State and anr.) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 12 th August,2010. Heard Mr. A.S.Mardikar, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.D.M.Kale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.129 of 2009 reported at Police Station, Chandur Bazaar, District Amravati for accusation u/ss. 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w. Section 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the present applicant had applied for grant of anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Application No. 2586 of 2009, which was rejected by this Court on 12.8.2009; particularly, considering the seriousness of accusations, as also the material collected during the course of investigation on the basis of statement of one witness Bhaiyasaheb Ingle indicating that the present applicant had opened an account with the bank in the name of Rajesh Ramesh Rathi and subsequently, it was revealed that said Rajesh Ramesh Rathi 2 is known as ‘Shailendra Thakur’, brother of the applicant. It was also noted that the present applicant was introduced by Mr.Rajesh Ramesh Rathi and he was associated with absconding accused Rajesh Ramesh Rathi @ Shailendra Thakur. Learned Advocate for the applicant states that now the charge-sheet is already filed and police have attributed role to one Manoj Baraskar in the opening of the bank account in the Central Bank of India, Ghatladki Branch in which, on 11.4.2009, bank account was opened in the name of Rajesh Rathi upon introduction given by the account holder Gajanan Jaware. The cheques of Central Bank of India, Kanpur branch were credited in the account of Rajesh Ramesh Rathi and in alleged connivance of the bank employees, the amount worth Rs.76,47,950/- was withdrawn from the Ghatladki branch in the fictitious name of Rajesh Ramesh Rathi. The cheques as well as the documents of Kanpur branch of Central Bank of India were found bogus and in the result, it is alleged that the Central Bank of India, Ghatladki branch was cheated. It is contended that said Rajesh Ramesh Rathi @ Shailendra Thakur has been released on bail. Learned Advocate for the applicant also relied upon the ruling in Bharat Chaudhary and another .vs. State of Bihar and another reported in AIR 2003 SC 4662 to argue that the Court has power to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences even when cognizance has been taken or charge-sheet has been filed provided that the facts of the case requires the Courts to do so. In para 11 of the said ruling, it appears that the Apex Court recorded 3 its concurrence with the proposition that the duration of anticipatory bail should be normally limited till the trial Court has the necessary material before it to pass such orders as it thinks on the material available before it. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that earlier anticipatory bail was rejected as custodial interrogation of the present applicant was felt essential and considering seriousness of the accusations against him as to preparation of false documents, cheating etc. in the huge sum, as also alleged role attributed to the present applicant. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, since the earlier anticipatory bail was rejected on 12.8.2009, present applicant has been absconding and therefore, could not be arrested. He is, in fact, avoiding the investigation against him. It is also alleged that the present applicant played vital role in commission of crime and the name Rajesh Ramesh Rathi was used only in order to cheat the bank. It is contended that investigation as against the present applicant is still pending and could not be completed for want of his custodial interrogation. Under these circumstances, after rejection of anticipatory bail of the present applicant, I think he could have surrendered to the custody of Investigating Officer and may have applied for grant of bail in the due course, on merits. For the above reasons, this is not a case where the Court would require to consider the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the basis that 4 the charge-sheet is already filed and investigation could not make progress as against the present applicant for want of his custodial interrogation. I must reject the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE jais