MANOJ LAKHULAL CHOURASIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PERUSED the earlier orders passed by this Court and more specifically the order dated 3rd August 2006, wherein the applicants' Advocate's statement is recorded that applicants would abide by all such requirements as are stipulated in the rules and regulations framed by the State and obtain requisite permissions and licences.

(2.) THE applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with C.R.No.I-180 of 2006 registered at Ulhasnagar police station. Offences alleged are under section 420 read with 34 I.P.C. and under sections 4 and 5 of Prohibition of Gambling Act. F.I.R. is registered on 15th July 2006.

(3.) AFTER perusing the application and the annexures thereto, it is apparent that on the application for anticipatory bail being rejected by the trial court on 21st July 2006, this Court has protected the applicants. Further, appropriate statements and undertakings have been recorded by this Court. The A.P.P. was also directed to file reply indicating material collected in the investigation against the present applicants. There is no reply filed by the A.P.P. However, as far as bailable offences are concerned, the application for anticipatory bail would not be maintainable. Insofar as offences alleged under section 420 I.P.C. is concerned, the role is only that the applicants are directors of a company which makes and prepares this software. That software is installed by co-accused Amarlal Chawla at his cyber cafe. Now the material including the computer sets have been seized already. Applicant's role is that of making and preparing software. In such circumstances and when it is not pointed out that after seizure of the equipment and documents, custodial interrogation is necessary, then the applicants deserve to be protected. More particularly, because, it is not pointed out that if the applicants are enlarged on pre-arrest bail, they are not likely to cooperate with the investigation or would not be available to face the trial.