Iqbalsingh Pyarasingh Dhillon v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1449 OF 2014 Iqbalsingh Pyarasingh Dhillon ...Applicant vs.

State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b. Dhananjay Kendre, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.

DATE : JANUARY 22, 2015 P.C.

.

For the reasons recorded in the order dated 28-11-2014 the ad-interim direction in nature of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed in favour of the applicant.

2.

It is the case of the first informant that her signature appearing upon the document of purchase of flat is forged signature. It appears that unfortunately the investigating officer has not collected the specimen signature of the first 1/3

informant and specimen signatures on the agreement in question and send it to handwriting expert. The learned APP submitted that the same has been collected and has been forwarded to handwriting expert on 08-01-2015.

3.

The matter is referred to handwriting expert recently and it will take appreciable time for receiving the report. Having regard to it and having regard to the fact that except the said aspect presently the custodial interrogation of the applicant can not be said to be imperative for completion of investigation. Having due regard to the said aspect, there appears no worthy reason for not confirming ad-interim direction.

4.

Resultantly, the application is allowed.

The ad-interim direction given vide order dated 2811-2014 is hereby confirmed on earlier terms and conditions with the modification that he applicant shall stay at the address mentioned in the 2/3

application and shall not change the same without permission of the trial Court, shall deposit his passport with the investigating officer, shall attend the investigating officer whenever summoned by him by sending sms on the mobile number of the applicant which is to be furnished by the applicant today to investigating officer and shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the investigating officer.

5.

Liberty to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of direction in event of tangible material being received in the shape of report of handwriting expert or otherwise that signature on the agreement being not that of the first informant. Application stands disposed of.

(P.D. KODE, J.) 3/3