1 apln3401-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3401 OF 2010 Mahadu Kondaji Gophane. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.M.M. Khokhawala, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 04TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Khokhawala for the applicant in this application for anticipatory bail preferred on behalf of the applicant, a Government Servant working in the Stamp Office. 2. During the relevant period of August, 2001 allegedly present applicant had given three Court-fee stamp papers each valued for Rs.25,000/- to one client Mrs.Phadia. Said stamp papers were bearing Sr.Nos.37 to 39. Reportedly, said stamp papers were used in some civil suit. However, it was revealed that the said stamp papers are not genuine and as 2 apln3401-10 such the enquiry was initiated. Initially the matter was sent to Kurla police station in the year, 2002. Thereafter the matter was taken over by the DCB, CID. During the said investigation, total 310 judicial stamp papers were taken out and were sent to Government Security Press at Nashik in order to ascertain their authenticity. Out of said stamp papers, 191 stamp papers were found to be bogus and present three stamp papers bearing Sr.Nos.37 to 39 were amongst such 191 bogus stamp papers. 3. During the investigation, it was revealed and which was further fortified by the handwriting expert's opinion that the present applicant being the then employee and working in the respective window at the High Court premises had distributed the said three stamp papers to the client, as mentioned above. Also during the investigation, it was revealed that in the register maintained at the window, there is a reference regarding the said three stamp papers however against the said Sr.Nos.37 to 39, the amounts are mentioned as 200, 200 and 500. Per se it gives rise to the fraud and 3 apln3401-10 forgery committed by the present applicant. 4. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant vehemently argued that the matter is already investigated. Concerned stamp papers were already sent for handwriting expert and the opinion is also received and hence there cannot be any more purpose achieved by sending the applicant in police custody. 5. Considering that out of some similar type of matter, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant and considering that the present applicant is still in the Government service and apparently no action is taken against him, even departmental, in the present matter, though having such prima facie material, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to give a concrete relief of prearrest bail. However, he can be directed to appear before the concerned Sessions Court and surrender himself and ask for regular bail and till that time he can be protected from the arrest. Hence the order :- 4 apln3401-10 :: O R D E R :: [i] The applicant is directed to surrender before the concerned Sessions Court at Mumbai within 10 days from the date of this order and ask for regular bail. [ii] Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay who will be seized of the matter, shall deal with such application according to law without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in the present order so far as the merits of the case are concerned. [iii] Till the time of surrender within 10 days, protection is granted to the present applicant from his arrest in the present matter at the hands of the investigating officer. Such protection will not be effective after 10 days' of this order. [iv] With these directions, Criminal Application is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD 15.apln3401-10