1 ABA390.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.390 OF 2011 KJ Mr.Dilipkumar Shrivastava )..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra )..Respondents ---- Mr.U.Parvez i/by Shri Abdul Kadar Millwala for the applicant. Mr.Rajendra Sorankar for the original complainant. Mrs.A.A.Mane APP for the State. ---- CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR J (VACATION JUDGE) DATE : 13/5/2011. PC 1 This anticipatory bail application is filed against the order dated 20.4.2011 of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, rejecting the anticipatory bail. The applicant/accused and the original complainant are the real brothers. The complainant has lodged a private complaint dated 21.3.2011 before the Magistrate. Pursuant to the said complaint, learned Magistrate passed order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, inter alia, police from Malabar Hill 2 ABA390.11.sxw Police station commenced investigation and registered offence punishable under Sections 405, 409, 420, 466, 468, 471 & 477 of IPC in C.R.No.MECR No.07/2011. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the original complainant was ill from 1994 and he has resigned from the company much earlier i.e in the year 1986. The applicant/accused and the original complainant were the Directors of the company. However, due to the health problem, original complainant resigned from the director-ship and he appointed the other relatives so the allegations of forgery, criminal breach of trust or cheating, all are false. The applicant has in fact attended the police station on three occasions and he has not committed any offence. Learned Advocate further submits that the applicant/accused has given him the share in the profit of the company. Learned Special Judge has committed an error in rejecting application and not considering these facts. 2 Learned APP for the State opposes this application and submits that investigation is still going on and they require to take custody of the documents and verify the truthfulness of the 3 ABA390.11.sxw documents. 3 Learned Advocate for the original complainant submits that the alleged resignation in 1986 itself is a forgery. 4 Learned Advocate for the applicant/accused submits that he was in fact removed from the directorship and his brother-in-law Pramod and his nephew Amulya were appointed as directors. It was further argued that the Special Judge has erred in holding that the conveyance of the properties of the company was not by him but by Pramod and Amulya. While meeting this argument, learned Advocate for the original complainant pointed out that Pramod is a brother-in-law of the applicant/accused and Amulya is a relative who was put in the post of the director, but however, this has been done not by the regular procedure and in the legal manner but with the help of the forged documents. 5 Perused the order passed by the Special Judge. The learned Judge has correctly dealt with all the points in respect of forgery 4 ABA390.11.sxw and the suspicious transactions. The submission of learned APP that the documents which are produced, are to be verified and the truthfulness of the documents is to be ascertained, is accepted. The Special Court has granted seven days time to seek relief which was over on 27.4.2011. Considering the nature of the offence, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Application is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J)