1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3400 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3588 OF 2010 Mr. Balvinder Sharma .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondents & Ors. Mr. H.R. Desai, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 31st August, 2010 P.C. 1. This is the common order on two applications filed by the same applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.317 of 2010 registered with Rajgad Police Station, Peshan, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120­B read with 34 Indian Penal Code and C.R. No.155 of 2010 registered with Sangli City Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 407, 120­B read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The allegations made in the two complaints filed are similar in nature. It is the case of the prosecution that by applying the same modus operandi, the applicant and the directors of Arambh Agrri and Cattle Pvt. Limited, Kothrud, Pune have cheated thousands of 2 persons inducing them to part with substantial money. It is alleged that the company invited several persons to act as its agents for collecting fixed deposits under various schemes for the tenure of 3, 5, 6 and 7 years. The Arambh group of companies are also dealing with business of insurance policy and selling tea. As per the complaint, it has been represented to the investors of the company that the amount invested by them in the company would be doubled within 5 years. The complainant alleges the ½ Chairman and Directors of the Company, Sanjay Dhanawe, Mrs. Rupali Sanjay Dhanawe, Mrs. Dipali Dhananjay Dhanawe and the applicant wherein as Vice President of one of the Arambh group companies used to visit villages in Pune and Sangli districts from time to time, hold meetings and arrange training camps for the agents of the company. It has trained and employed about 3000 agents., who are supposed to receive commission of 20% for first year, and 10% for the second and third year. The complainant himself supervises and controls 81 sub­agents. He has collected and deposited a sum of Rs.36,93,055/­ in the company on behalf of the investors. His personal investments are of Rs.1,52,000/­.. It is alleged that various schemes launched by the Arambh group companies are false and bogus. The company also had no permission of Reserve Bank of India for accepting the deposits. 3 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this applicant is not a director of the company. He came to be associated with the Arambh group for the first time in October 2009 and that too with the Company, which conducts the business in insurance, which is known as Arambh Insurance Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., He “ claims that as such he has no connection with Arambh Agrri & Cattle Pvt. Ltd. According to him he has been implicated in the complaint on the instigation of persons investors. As per the claim made by the applicant, Arambh Agrri and Cattle Pvt. Ltd. is involved in the business of sale and purchase of cattle. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the company has not been accepting money on deposits for which permission from the Reserve Bank of India is required. According to him, the company carries on business of sale and purchase of cattle. The investment into the company by several persons is to purchase cattle and at the end of period of investment, the investors have a choice of either to purchase the cattle or to accept the returns on the amount invested. Sale of cattle is obviously only a front put up by the company. It is obvious from the facts of the case that the company has been accepting deposits from several persons. Though the applicant is not seen to be part of Arambh Agrri and Cattle Pvt. Ltd., he has been specifically named in the complaint 4 and given a role of training the agents of the company who can collect deposit for it. In the circumstances, in my opinion, this is not the fit case for exercise of special discretionary powers to grant anticipatory bail. It has been lastly submitted that the daughter of the applicant is due to be married shortly and therefore, the case of the applicant be considered favourably. The reason set out by the applicant is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the applications are rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3556 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. H.R. Desai, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 31st August 2010 PC :­ At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, the Criminal Application No. 3556 of 2000 is allowed to be withdrawn. ( Judge ) ( Judge )