1 ABA776.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.776 OF 2011 KJ Mr.Dinesh Singh Lakra )..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ---- Shri. A.M.Saraogi for the applicant. Shri Y.S.Shinde APP for the respondent/State. ---- CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J DATE : 20th September, 2011 PC 1 The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.26 of 2007 registered at Oshiwara police station under Sections 420 r/w 120- B of IPC on a report lodged by one Mufdal Saifuddin Baliwala who carried on business in the name of Trinity Technologies. 2 On 6.1.2006, one Smt.Ankita approached the complainant on behalf of Misti Abacus Academy Private Limited for supply of 2 ABA776.11.sxw computers as they immediately required 50 computers and they would also need more in future. They assured to pay 10% of the price in cash and balance amount in cheques within 8 days. Accordingly, a large number of computers, laptops, printers, cameras etc. worth Rs.24,37,225/- were supplied. Amount of Rs. 3,26,800/- was paid by cheque which was encashed. However, the cheque for balance amount of Rs.21,10,425/- was dis-honoured. Inspite of the letters and requests, payment was not made. As per the FIR, S.Krishnamohan, Praful Verma, Mukesh Chopda and Smt.Ankita had conspired to make false representation and deceived the complainant. In the FIR there is no mention of the name of the present applicant as one of the culprit. Though in the initial paragraph it is mentioned that the applicant along with the others, with common intention had purchased the computers etc., The learned APP contended that as per the statement of Praful recorded on 5.9.2007, the present applicant and other accused persons had placed the order for computers on the letter-head of his company and he himself has not received any computers. Except that statement, there is no material against the present 3 ABA776.11.sxw applicant. Even though a period of more than 4 years have passed after that statement was recorded, the investigating officer did not bother to collect the documents by which the order was placed to show that the present applicant was the person who had placed the order. 3 Therefore, in the event of the arrest in C.R.No.26 of 2007, the applicant be released on his executing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount with condition that he shall make himself available to police as and when required for interrogation and shall fully co-operate in the investigation. (J.H.BHATIA,J)