Chandar Ganu Wagh v. The State Of Maharashtra

07-ABA-2153-18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2153 OF 2018 Shri. Chandar Janu Wagh ... Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra.

... Respondents ----- Mr. Sanjay A. Ghaisas, for applicant.

Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for State.

----- CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE :- 14 th JUNE, 2019 P. C. :- 1.

The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.I 32 of 2018 registered with Surgana police station, under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC. 2.

The offence is registered on the basis of application given by Circle Inspector dated 30/07/2018. It is mentioned in the FIR that he had made an application before Tahsildar, Surgana in respect of review of mutation entry No.753 in respect of Gut Nos.15, 40, 249, 11, 64 and 254. During the revision of first mutation entry, the S.D.O. had conducted an inquiry by giving notice to the applicant and respondent in respect of mutation entry No.753. During the inquiry V.B.Gokhale

07-ABA-2153-18.odt the statement of the present applicant was recorded on 05/10/2017, wherein he had accepted that he had entered into the record room by using a duplicate key and had made entries in the 7/12 and 8A in the month of August, 2016. Thereafter the S.D.O. directed registration of FIR. Accordingly, first informant had lodged the F.I.R. 2.

Heard learned counsel Shri. S. A. Ghaisas for the applicant and Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the matter pertains to tampering of documentary evidence and custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. The applicant is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. Looking at the allegations in the FIR, the offence appears to be more serious. The applicant has not only entered the Government office by use of duplicate key, but has also tampered with the important public record affecting rights of the parties. The offence is clearly made out and custodial interrogation appears to be absolutely necessary in this case. Hence, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Application is rejected.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) V.B.Gokhale