(1) Cri. Application No. 3891 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3891 of 2011 Punjaji s/o. Sadashiv Khandare, Age : 36 years, Occupation : Social worker, R/o. Talani, Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli. .. Applicant. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Hingoli (Town), Taluka & District : Hingoli. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Narendra R. Jamdhade, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ (2) Cri. Application No. 3891 of 2011 CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, and heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 137/2011, registered at Police Station, Hingoli (Town), for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Arvind s/o. Vitthalrao Lokhande, on 16-7-2011, contending that he is working as LIC agent and he is an educated unemployed and was in search of the employment. It is also alleged that in the year 2009, he met one Babasaheb Bhalerao, resident of Parbhani, who is also LIC agent, and through him, he met the applicant, namely, Punjaji s/o. Sadashiv Khandare, resident of Talani (Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli). The applicant (3) Cri. Application No. 3891 of 2011 claimed to be President of Nagarjun Sevabhavi Sanstha, and was having identity card of Bhartiya Gramin Patrakar Sangh, and President of Police Janta Parivartan Dal, Marathwada Division. It is also alleged that the applicant pretended to the complainant that he employed numerous students in various Departments. As the complainant was in need of the employment, the applicant taking opportunity of the said need, contacted the complainant in May 2009. Thereafter, the applicant asked the complainant to come at Santosh Tea House at Ramleela Maidan on 16-9-2009 at about 3.00 p.m., and the applicant assured him that he would appoint the complainant in the Government Higher & Technical Education Department, of Government of Maharashtra, in Amaravati Division. It is alleged that the applicant demanded amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- for completion of the said job. After negotiations, the said amount was fixed at Rs. 3,00,000/-. Hence, the complainant paid the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the applicant immediately. Thereupon, the applicant asked the complainant to wait there for about one hour, and accordingly, the complainant waited in Santosh Tea House for the applicant. At about 5.00 p.m., on the same day, i.e. on 16-9-2009, the applicant returned to Santosh Tea House and handed over appointment order dated 22-8-2009, bearing No. R- II/R.O./13/08, having Outward No. 02/E- mail/devtvmumbai.yahoo.com, of the Government of (4) Cri. Application No. 3891 of 2011 Maharashtra, Higher & Technical Education Division, M.M.T.P.C./10036, Mumbai 400 001, for the post of Store Keeper at Industrial Training Centre at Bundhana, and having signature of Divisional Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Division, Mumbai, thereon. The said appointment order was also accompanied by an appointment letter asking to report the complainant on 18-9-2009 at 11.30 a.m. in the office of the Government of Maharashtra, Industrial Training Centre, Buldhana. 4. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the concerned office as per the said appointment letter. However, officers in the said office, on verification of the said order, stated that the said appointment order was bogus. Hence, the complainant contacted the applicant. Thereupon, the applicant asked the complainant to come from Buldhana to the Divisional Office at Amaravati. Accordingly, the complainant went in the Divisional Office at Amaravati. However, officers from Divisional Office at Amaravati also informed the complainant that the said appointment letter was bogus. Thereafter, the complainant made efforts to contact the applicant on telephone, but his phone was switched off. The complainant also tried to meet the applicant personally, but the applicant used to sneak away and did not meet the complainant. (5) Cri. Application No. 3891 of 2011 5. It is also alleged that the complainant met another person, namely, Ganesh Parasram Chavan, who also was cheated and deceived by the applicant for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Ultimately, on 16-7-2011, the complainant and said Ganesh Parasram Chavan met the applicant at Sengaon and demanded the amount, but the applicant refused to recognize them. Accordingly, it is the grievance of the complainant, that the applicant herein cheated and deceived the complainant. 6. On the aforesaid background, learned Counsel for the applicant canvassed that there is delay in lodging the FIR and the complainant has lodged the present complaint to harass the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is in custody since 20th July 2011, and almost entire investigation has been completed, and hence, urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned APP, for the respondent, countered the said arguments, and submitted, that the investigation is under progress, and the amounts of Rs. 3,00,000/- pertaining to the applicant, and Rs. 4,00,000/- pertaining to said Ganesh s/o. Parasram Chavan, are yet to be recovered from the applicant. It is also submitted, that similar types of offences have been (6) Cri. Application No. 3891 of 2011 committed by the colleagues of the applicant in various districts, and said information is awaited. It is further submitted that Rajmudra, allegedly used by the applicant, is also yet to be recovered, and hence, urged that the present application bears no substance, and therefore, same be dismissed. 8. Considering the rival submissions, and on perusal of investigation papers, it appears that false appointment letters were issued on the letter head of the Government of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Division, Mumbai, and the Assistant Director of Vocational Education and Training, Regional Office, Amaravati, has issued a letter dated 23-7-2011, on verification of the said appointment letters, that the said appointment letters were not issued by the said office, in respect of the applicant, as well as, said Ganesh s/o. Parasram Chavan, and therefore, further investigation in the said matter is necessary, more particularly, in the direction, from where the said Rajmudara was obtained by the applicant, as well as, from where the applicant procured the letter pad of the Government of Maharashtra for issuance of the said false and fake appointment letters to the applicant, as well as, said Ganesh s/o. Parasram Chavan. The investigation papers also reveal that the memory card from the mobile of the applicant has been seized by the investigating agency and it is transpired that the applicant had (7) Cri. Application No. 3891 of 2011 telephonic talk with the complainant and other co-accused, and reportedly, voice sample of the applicant, for comparison, has been obtained and the same has been to Forensic Laboratory, and report thereof is still awaited. Moreover, amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, allegedly extracted from the complainant, and amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, taken from said Ganesh Chavan, are yet to be recovered. Moreover, false identity card allegedly used by the applicant is also yet to be recovered. Moreover, the other aspect cannot be overlooked that the racket of the applicant and his colleagues in the similar types of offences is under investigation, and the same is required to be unearthed, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 9. In the result, present Criminal Application lacks merits, and therefore, stands dismissed, and is disposed of finally. 10. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE bgp/3891ka