19crn2823-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2823 OF 2010 Smt.Sayali Patkar. .. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. .... Mr.N.V. Gangal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant, a woman accused, apprehending her arrest in C.R. No.73 of 2009 registered with Economic Offences Wing, Unit-III for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 34 of IPC etc and under Section 4 & 5 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Act, 1978. 19crn2823-10 2 2. The complaint is lodged by one investor who was showed by the present applicant to the main accused and also lured to invest various sums for getting double benefits. Allegedly the complainant invested about Rs.18 lakhs and odd. However, she did not get any returns as assured. Infact certain cheques given to the complainant, under the signatures of co-accused, one Shri Subhash Kamat presently absconding, were bounced. The main accused persons are brother and sister in law of the present applicant. 3. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that she has no role to play so far as taking the money and not obeying any of the offers propagated by the main accused persons and she was just to introduce certain clients to the scheme. It appears that according to the applicant only the complainant was introduced to the said scheme by the applicant. However, on this aspect the learned A.P.P., on instructions from the I.O. from EOW,who is present in the Court, submits that there are 19crn2823-10 3 more than 15-20 such investors who are taking the name of the present applicant as luring them to invest in the scheme. According to the I.O., the total quantum of the present scam is about Rs.50 crores and out of said bulk only an amount of Rs.2 crores could be traced out. The investigation in the present complaint is over and the chargesheet is filed. There are other cases pending before the EOW Unit and they are under investigation. 4. Considering the above situation and considering the bulk amount involved, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to give discretionary relief to the applicant and hence present application is disposed of with following order: :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.2823 of 2010 for anticipatory bail stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)