1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1828 of 2007 Sntosh Ambadas Lande Vs. State. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri H. N. Potbhare Advocate for applicant. Shri A. S. Parihar APP for State. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 12 th July, 2007. This is an application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. One Alok Khobragade is resident of Tilak Nagar Nagpur. His friend Prakash Surbule met him and told that he was member of company known as Club Freedom Holidays Pvt. Ltd. He told him that 2 amount of Rs.10,000/- if invested with the said company, within 3 months he would get back Rs. 3 lac. Since such a representation was made Alok Khobragade went along with Prakash Surbule to Hotel Rahul Delux. It is alleged that there he met his another friend by name Hemant Nikose. He explained the scheme of the said company to Alok. Alok immediately paid Rs.18,000/- to these two persons. They in turn handed over the said amount to the present applicant. Alok in the F. I. R. alleged that Santosh the present applicant was claiming himself to be the owner of the company. He also persuaded his other friends to invest such amount. They did invest such amount. It is further alleged that he did not receive any amount after 3 months and made a demand with the said company and others, but the said 3 demand was refused. Later he came to know through an item in newspaper that the company has duped many people. As a result he lodged the report with the police. Offence has been registered by the police, hence the present applicant/accused apprehends arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the amount in any case was handed over to Prakash and present applicant has no connection. He submitted that Prakash and Hemant have already been released on bail by the Court and, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and he should also be granted anticipatory bail. F. I. R. itself goes to suggest that complainant was persuaded by the two persons who took him to the present 4 applicant. F. I. R. also discloses that the money was handed over by these two persons to the present applicant in the presence of complainant. In view of this it is very much clear that it was present applicant/accused who had received amount from the complainant. It is in fact not disputed that as agreed no amount of Rs. 6 lac was ever paid to the present applicant. It appears that there is a large racket. Many people are involved and many innocent people have been duped. The matter needs therefore thorough investigation and, therefore, I find that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail should be granted. Application stands rejected. JUDGE svk