ROHIT MANIKLAL SANGVAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had kept shares of various companies standing in his name and in the names of his family members with his brother-in-law by name Pankaj Gandhi for safe custody. This Pankaj Gandhi forged signatures of the petitioner and other relatives and sold these shares to certain persons. After it was disclosed that signatures on the transfer from were forged. On Laxmilal Sethia, lodged complaint with the police and in that connection Pankaj Gandhi came to be arrested. The petitioner and other members in his family were also involved in the share deal and, therefore, apprehending arrest, they applied for grant of anticipatory bail to the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, Anticipatory bail has been granted in favour of other relatives except the petitioner, whose application has been rejected, holding that he is the brother-in-law of Pankaj Gandhi and that he must have hand in dealing regarding forgery of signatures and sale of shares. Hence he had approached this Court.

(2.) I have heard Shir Kini for the petitioner and Shri Sakhare, APP for the Respondent-State. It appears that the petitioner and other family members had deposited shares with Pankaj Gandhi under an agreement, copy of which is produced on record of this application. Further correspondence between the petitioner and the said Pankaj Gandhi is also produced, which would go to indicate that the petitioner and members of his family raised objection to the various dealings made by Pankaj Gandhi. Merely because, the said Pankaj Gandhi happens to be brother in law, it cannot be said that dealing regarding safe custody is suspicious. At any rate, the matter relates to forgery of documents and sale of shares and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary. In view of this position, I find this to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.