1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.2703 OF 2009 Mr Banvarilal Sighania .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Ashok M Saraogi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 23/06/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.93 of 2008 of E.O.W, Unit No.3. The said crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 465, 468,471, 420, 409 read with 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant was appointed as an agent by the complainant-company and was T 2 dealing with them as its agent for quite some time. The applicant recommended five new dealers to the company with their relevant documents, such as, pan cards, bank statements, sales tax and central sales tax’s copies etc. The company accepted all the recommendations and supplied material to each of the dealers worth several lacs. It, thereafter, revealed that all the documents produced by the applicant in respect of all the five dealers were bogus. It is alleged that the applicant had recommended even his servant’s name as a genuine dealer, and had produced bogus documents in support thereof. The goods were delivered by the company and the payments were made by cheques. All the cheques issued by the so-called dealers were bounced. Not only the aforementioned documents, but even other documents, such as photographs, election identity cards were also found to be false and bogus. The companies/firms, which were appointed as dealers, were not in existence, and thus the company suffered loss of crores of rupees and hence the complaint was filed against the applicant. 4. I have perused the record produced by the learned APP in support of these allegations. In my opinion, there is a prima facie case made out against the applicant showing his complicity in the offence. Having considered gravity of the offence and 3 overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. While passing this order, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)