HIRE SUNDERDAS BULANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREVIOUS application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by this Court on 1st August 1996 principally on the ground that one Rajesh Makhija from whom the petitioner is alleged to have purchased 1400 shares of Asian Paints Company was a fictitious person. A submission to that effect was made on behalf of the State by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of the conclusion of investigation made by that time. However, by this application, the petitioner has come with a case that the said Rajesh Makhija is not a fictitious person but, in fact, his residential address, ration card showing his name and even his driving licence have been produced by the petitioner before the police. Not only this, but after passing interim order in this application, the petitioner was called on number of times to the police station and his statement has been recorded. The petitioner accompanied the police to the house of said Rajesh Makhija and statements of his brother and brother's wife were recorded. However, Rajesh Makhija is admittedly absconding.

(2.) A case is made out that out of 1400 shares which were sought to be transferred by transfer form, 95 have been found to be stolen and forged signatures were obtained on the transfer forms. The petitioner says that he had received these 1400 shares from Rajesh Makhija and according to the petitioner whatever he received from Rajesh Makhija have been forwarded by him to the Company with the transfer forms. Since previous application was rejected on the ground that there was no person by name Rajesh Makhija and the petitioner appears to be involved in the matter and since the matter required investigation. I find that Rajesh Makhija is now admittedly there and the police have obtained sufficient time for the purpose of investigation so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is also not stated on behalf of the respondent that any investigation pertaining to the petitioner is pending. In these circumstances, I find that the petitioner deserves grant of anticipatory bail, particularly when he has co-operated with the police for tracing Rajesh Makhija.