1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2451 OF 2008 Anthony Menezes .... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent Miss Deepa Kamath for the applicant. Mr. Ganesh Gole for respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 3rd March, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an application for cancellation of bail which was granted by this Court by order dated 28/4/2006. A complaint was filed against the respondents 2 to 7 herein for the offence punishable under sections 504, 420, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 363 of 2006 registered with Manickpur Police Station. The respondents were Directors of the Company known as Trustwin Finance Co. Ltd and the Company was authorized to accept deposits from public. The Secretary of the Society deposited certain amount with the Company. However, this amount was not paid. Application for anticipatory bail was filed in this Court. 2 Out of total amount of Rs 72 lacs which was due and payable to the complainant, the respondents- accused expressed their willingness to deposit Rs 42 lacs in this Court. It was submitted that some of the other Directors who have been released on bail were not willing to deposit the balance amount. Accordingly total amount of Rs 46 lacs was deposited in this Court. Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant No.1 i.e Respondent No.2 herein was willing to deposit Rs 7 lacs within two months from the said date and for the balance amount of about Rs 18 lacs, he was willing to hand over possession of his office premises at Vasai without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties raised in the proceedings initiated before the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission and the criminal case. Accordingly, possession receipt also has been given by the respondents herein. Respondents also deposited an amount of Rs 8 lacs in this Court. So total amount of Rs 54 lacs has been deposited in this Court and possession of the office premises also has been given. 3. A grievance is made that the Society is not in a position to sell the said flat of which possession receipt has been given as maintenance charges have not been paid. It is submitted that therefore the said bail which is granted to the respondents 2 to 7 may be cancelled. 4. This submission cannot be accepted. There has been due and adequate compliance of the order passed by this 3 Court and, therefore, no case has been made out for cancellation of bail. 5. It is always open for the applicants herein to approach the appropriate court and seek appropriate orders from the said Court. The amount of the applicants has been secured by this Court in the anticipatory bail proceedings. In the said proceedings it is open for the applicants to seek further directions from the appropriate court directing the respondents to pay the maintenance charges or to seek further directions from the court pertaining to the said property. 6. Under these circumstances, application for cancellation of bail is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.)