1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No.295/2011 Ishwar Tukaramji Pelne ..vs.. The State of Mah] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. J.M. Gandhi , Advocate for the Applicant Mr.S.S.Doifode , A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 12.10.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant who apprehends his arrest in Crime No.257/2011 for offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The applicant is working as an agent at R.T.O. Nagpur. One Kaltasingh Chitodiya wanted a Learning Licence for himself and the applicant agreed to get for him the Learning Licence by charging an amount of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand). The said Kaltasingh is resident of Morshi, District Amravati and is an uneducated person who did not possess the residential proof. The allegation against the applicant is that he prepared bogus electricity bill in the name of Kaltasingh of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Bima Gold Policy of Life Insurance Corporation of India in the name of Kaltasingh, in order to get the Learning Licence for him. The said two documents were filed along with the application form at the office of the R.T.O. and during scrutiny, the R.T.O. Inspector asked Kaltasingh to produce the originals of the said electric bill and L.I.C.Policy when Kaltasingh informed that he 2 does not have the same. 4. The applicant has stated that the name and address of the applicant has not been mentioned in the First Information Report and that a different name is stated and therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be involved in the crime. He has also stated that he never submitted any document on behalf of Kaltasingh Chitodiya and that the officers of the R.T.O. Nagpur have lodged a false complaint in order to shift the blame. 5. Upon perusal of the records it is seen that said Kaltasingh Chitodiya has specifically stated that the applicant gave to him visiting card wherein his name was mentioned as Ishwar Pillai, R.T.O. Consultant. He has also stated that the said documents were also given by the applicant. There are witnesses who have stated that along with the application for Learning Licence, the said two bogus certificates were produced and during verification it was found that they were bogus documents. It is contended by the respondent that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to seize the original copies of the said documents and to know as to from where he got prepared the said bogus documents and as to how many persons are involved in preparing such bogus documents and as to how many times he has prepared such type of bogus documents, previously. 6. After considerable arguments, learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon “Abdul Hamit Ansari ..vs.. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2000 SC (Cri) 3541(1)] wherein the Hon. Supreme Court has directed that if the appellants would surrender before the police within two weeks from the date of judgment, the Investigating Officer shall complete the interrogation of the appellant concerned, as expeditiously as possible and on completion of investigation and recovery of material object, if any, the appellant shall be released on 3 bail, on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with two solvent sureties each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. Relying upon the case supra the Hon. Single Judge of this court in Criminal Application No.2576/2009 by order dated 1.9.2009 has directed the applicants no.2 to 5 to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 7 days and that the Investigating Officer shall complete their interrogation within three days from the date and time of the surrender inclusive of recovery or discovery of any material from them and upon expiry of three days the said applicants shall be released on furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- by each of them with one or more sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, provided further that the applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer as and when required etc. Learned advocate for the applicant has also relied upon State of Haryana ..vs.. L. D. Kataria [2001(3) Crimes 130 (SC)] wherein also the Hon. Apex Court has directed the respondents to surrender before the Vigilance Officer, Police Station, Rohatak at 8.00 a.m. on 7.2.2001 and that on such surrender he shall be arrested by the Investigating Officer and interrogation shall be held till 9.00 p.m., if necessary, and then release him on bail on his executing a bail bond [with or without sureties] to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer etc. 7. It is the contention of the learned A.P.P. Shri Doifode that in terms of section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code no restriction can be imposed on the power of the Investigation Officer by directing him to release the accused upon his surrender. He has relied upon the Government of Tamilnadu and others ..vs.. M. Ananchu Ansari i and others AIR 2005 SC 1062 and Naresh Kumar Yadav ...vs.. Ravindra Kumar and others [AIR 2008 SC 218]. 4 8. I have gone through both the citations relied upon by the learned A.P.P. and in my view they do not apply to the facts of the present case and the orders made therein by the Hon. Apex Court are of a different nature. In my view custodial interrogation for three days would suffice the purpose. Relying upon the citations which are cited by learned advocate for the applicant, I make the following order: ORDER The applicant shall surrender before the Investigating Officer of Crime No.257/2011 registered at Police Station Sitabuldi, Nagpur within one week from today. After arrest the Investigating Officer shall carry out the custodial interrogation within three days from the date and time of the surrender including recovery or discovery of any documents, etc. Upon expiry of the said three days, which may be less than the said three days, if the presence of the applicant is not required in police custody, the applicant shall be released upon furnishing personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The applicant thereafter shall attend the Police Station Sitabuldi as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer to do so. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. The application stands disposed accordingly. Hamdast granted. JUDGE SMP