abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 345 OF 2008 Avtar Singh Sethi .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi i/b Mr.V.Z. Kankaria for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. Mrs.Anjali Patil for the intervener. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13TH MARCH 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. for the State and with the leave of the Court the learned counsel for the complainant. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.629/2007 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Mumbai for the alleged offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 511 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. - 2 - 3. The complainant and the applicant are real brothers and are directors of Popular Car Bazar Pvt. Ltd. (for short "the Company"). On 8th December 2007, the complainant lodged a First Information Report with the police alleging therein that on 2nd November 2005 the applicant gave two fabricated letters to ICICI Bank Ltd. for transferring a sum of Rs.21,68,829/- and Rs.6,43,076/- from the account of the Company to the account of a proprietary concern of the applicant. According to the complainant, the account of the Company was to be operated by the joint signatures of himself and the applicant. According to the complainant, his signature was forged and by issuing fabricated letters with forged signatures, the applicant transferred over a sum of over Rs.28,00,000/- in the name of his own proprietary concern and has deceived the complainant and the company. 4. In pursuance of the complaint, the investigation was carried out. The police sought an opinion of the hand-writing expert who opined that the letters in question do not bear the signatures of the complainant. Thus, according to the A.P.P., there is prima facie evidence on record to show that the applicant has forged the signature of the complainant and therefore the applicant is not entitled to bail. - 3 - 5. The applicant had previously approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. By an order dated 12th December 2007, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application and granted temporary anticipatory bail to the applicant upto 19th December 2007. He further directed that the applicant shall surrender before the court on or before 19th December 2007 and apply for regular bail. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the applicant has not surrendered before the court in pursuance of the order passed by the Sessions Court and therefore the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. On being questioned whether the police have filed a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), learned counsel for the complainant, who was heard with the permission of the Court, submitted that the report has not been filed. If no report was filed by the police under section 173 of the Code, it was difficult for the applicant to surrender before the court. Even if the applicant had surrendered himself before the Magistrate, the Magistrate may have been unable to take him in custody as there was no matter before him. In the circumstances, in my view, the applicant cannot be denied bail on that ground. Since after consideration of all the material, the Sessions Court has already granted anticipatory bail, it would be appropriate to - 4 - extend the protection by way of anticipatory bail upto the date of filing of the report by the police under section 173 of the Code. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER ORDER ORDER In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with the offence mentioned above, he shall be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that the applicant shall not tamper with the investigation process. . This order shall come to an end on the report being filed by the police under section 173 of the Code. On such report being filed, the applicant shall be free to move the court for regular bail. If such an application is made, the court shall consider it on its own merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)