1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.874 OF 2011 Suraybhan Manikrao Mundhe .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.S.V.Kotwal with Mr.Jayant Bardeskar i/b.Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail by agricultural assistant Suraybhan Mundhe, who apprehends arrest in connection with C.R.No. 28 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 2 registered with Lanja Police Station and who had not been named in the FIR as a participant in misappropriation of grants sanctioned by the Central Government under an 'Integrated Waste Land Development Scheme'. He was assistant of one Shekhar Prabhakar Shetye, who has been named as accused No.1 in the FIR. This Court had considered the application for anticipatory bail by said Shetye bearing Anticipatory Bail Application No.710 of 2011 and had found that said Shetye was entitled to anticipatory bail. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.23,000/- which has been shown in the chart as the amount misappropriated by the applicant within a period of two weeks. The learned APP submits that though Shetye had been admitted to anticipatory bail, applicant should not be granted anticipatory bail since according to the chart prepared by the investigating officer, 3 applicant's complicity in getting false and forged signatures of several witnesses has been indicated. Of them, two persons Vijay Shantaram Gurav and Nandkumar Namdeo Gandhi were cheated into signing the documents concerned. Therefore, according to the learned APP, applicant's being in custody for the purpose of this part of investigation would be necessary. Now, whether the persons had been cheated into signing the documents can be examined even without applicant's being in custody. Insofar as false and forged documents are concerned by taking specimen signatures that aspect also can be investigated. An elaborate order of this Court dated 22nd August, 2011 on Anticipatory Bail Application No.710 of 2011 deals with all aspects of the matter and since applicant was first not named in the FIR and secondly, his superior Shetye, has been admitted to bail, applicant's being in custody for the purpose of further investigation may not be necessary. 4 Therefore, in the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.25,000/- on the conditions that he shall deposit a sum of Rs. 23,000/- with the trial court within two weeks which amount the trial court shall invest in interest earning deposit in SBI; that he shall make himself available before the police as and when called for the interrogation and investigation and shall produce all relevant documents and material which may be required and also provide samples of his handwriting and signatures etc., if needed, with further condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not misuse the bail. 4. Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. 5 . The order will remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge sheeted the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 2nd December, 2010 delivered in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.7615 of 2009 (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra And Ors.). (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)