IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3205 OF 2009 Rafique Yasin Qureshi ........ Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. I.S. Thakur with Shraddha Y. Mohite adv. for the Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 11th August, 2009. P. C.: 1. A Senior Manager of the Central Bank of India lodged an FIR against the Builder, Borrowers, and some bank employees working at the branch. According to the complainant, some borrowers, in connivance with the builder and some employees of the bank applied for loan for purchase of a given flat. Documents came to be prepared as are necessary for the bank to sanction the loan. Ultimately it was found that the borrowers were not in possession of the flat and the builder is absconding. By playing fraud, huge sums of monies are misappropriated. So far as the present applicant is concerned, he had applied for sanction of loan in the sum of Rs. 5,29,000/- from the bank. The amount was sanctioned and the amount of loan was supposed to be paid to the original builder by name Gopal Bhagatsing Sonar proprietor of M/s. Rashma Enterprises however the amount was deposited in a fictitious account no. 00152000008612 in HDFC bank Mulund branch in the name of proprietor Mahesh Sampatraj Punamiya. An affidavit has been filed in reply to the application and in para 5 thereof it is stated that the investigation reveals that the applicant borrower Rafiq Yasin Qureshi has received a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- by bearer cheque No. 0717641 dated 25-1-2005 from the said fictitious account opened in HDFC bank. The amount was withdrawn by the son of the applicant. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the modus operandi adopted by the applicant in connivance with other accused, the learned APP submits that custodial interrogation is very much necessary. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, a registered agreement was executed in between the applicant and the builder and a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was paid by way of earnest money/part payment. Even this payment of Rs. 55,000/- is shown to have been made in cash. Record further reveals that at no point of time the applicant made any grievance in regard to failure on the part of the builder to hand over possession of flat. In so far as the receipt of the amount from fictitious account is concerned, the explanation of the applicant is that the said amount denote the refund of the excess payment made by the applicant to the builder. This appears to be improbable. There are various aspects which needs to be properly investigated. What is relevant to note is that against the same flat loan has been disbursed by more than one bank. In the instant case so far as the applicant is concerned, the flat in question is financed by the Central Bank of India besides Uco Bank, A.R. Street branch, Mumbai and also Brandra branch of the said bank. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence application is rejected. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)