{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3937 OF 2010 Shriniwas Rajaram Chippa APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Koshti h/f Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant seeks pre- arrest bail in connection with Crime No.272/2010 registered with Topkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar. 2. Interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant by this Court vide order dated 5th October 2010. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, particularly the FIR. {2} 4. It appears that the present complaint has been lodged by one Nikhil Wagh on 13.09.2010 in respect of the incident dated 18.07.2008 i.e. after about 26 months of the alleged incident. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had received an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- out of his share from the property sold by his father, which he had kept in the Merchant Bank. It is further stated in the complaint that he had withdrawn Rs. 15,00,000/- out of the said amount by cheque on 18.07.2008 at 8.00 p.m. It is alleged in the complaint that he had given the said amount to his friend Deepak Savant for keeping it safe. It is further alleged that as suggested by his friend Deepak, he purchased on Scorpio car for the consideration of Rs.11,50,000/- however, as his right hand was fractured and he was unable to sign, he purchased the said car in the name of his friend Deepak and balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was kept with Deepak. It is also alleged that his brother had given Rs.7,00,000/- to the mediator, i.e. present applicant to give to the complainant, however the applicant only gave me Rs.3,00,000/- and kept the balance Rs.4,00,000/- as a commission of three mediators and hence the complaint. 5. Perusal of the complaint indicates that though the transaction, as alleged, has occurred long back, yet the complaint is lodged after 27 months and there is no explanation at all in the complaint for the delay in lodging the complaint. Secondly, the allegation in the complaint that as right hand of the complainant {3} was fractured and he was unable to sign and therefore he had purchased the vehicle in the name of his friend, requires to be considered in the light of the fact that immediately one day before the said transaction, the applicant himself had withdrawn an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in the night at 8.00, as contended by him in the complaint itself. Apart from it, it is not clear as to what renumeration was fixed for the mediators or whether they offered their services free of costs. It is alleged against the applicant that he has charged Rs.4,00,000/- towards commission of three mediators. Considering the vague allegations in the complaint, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in exercise of discretionary powers vested in this Court. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 05.10.2010 is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant is directed to attend the concerned police station, if required for interrogation, on written intimation from the IO concerned. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3937-10