[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.2311 NO.OF 2008 1. Inayat Hassandi Virani 2. Mohd. Ilyas Shaikh ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Sameer Rajguru Advocate for Applicants Mr.Narendra Dube Adv.for original compalinant Ms.P.P.Shinde APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned advocate for the original complainant. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.115 of 2008 of Worli Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is mainly under Sections 420 and 406 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3. The statement of the complainant shows that complainant Abdul Sharif and witness Mohd. Moinuddin show that they intended to go for service [-2-] in foreign country. They were introduced to applicant no.1 Inayat Virani who had shown them the identity card of Atlanta Tours and Travels and impressed them that he was passport agent and he used to send persons for service at Singapore, London, America and Dubai. He also promised them that he would give visit visa and promised them that if they go to Hongkong they will get work-visa and there was vacancy of Helper in computer company in Hongkong for which job they will get Rs.40,000/- in Indian currency and Rs.1000/- in US$. Applicant No.1 told them that in order to send them to Hongkong they have to pay Rs.3,00,000/- each. Ultimately, the amount was settled at Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant and witness Mohd. Moinuddin collected the said amount from their relatives and gave the amount to the applicant no.1. The complainant obtained signature of applicant no.1 in respect of receipt of Rs.5 lakhs, in which it is stated that the complainant and witness Mohd. Moinuddin would be given job in Hongkong as computer parts helper and the pay would be 1000 US$. Applicant no.1 took both of them to the air port. At that time, applicant no.2 and two other accused persons were also present. Both the [-3-] complainant and witness Mohd. Moinuddin were then sent to Hongkong. When they alighted at Hongkong, they informed Immigration Officer that they had come for the purposes of service. However, the Immigration Officer took them in custody and they were sent back to India. Again the complainant and witness Mohd. Moinuddin were sent to China. They were informed that from China they would be sent to Hongkong by boat. However, they were told that as the size of the boat is not big, it is not possible to send them by boat. Thereafter, they were taken in a jeep along with other persons and the jeep reached upto border. Thereafter, they were asked to walk for distance of two kms. in darkness. However, the vehicle of China Army came there and caught the complainant and witness Moinuddin and confined them. Thereafter they were sent back to Delhi. On arrival in Delhi, they contacted their relatives and eventually they came to Mumbai. 4. The learned APP has pointed out that the Card which was handed over by applicant no.1 to the complainant, is a bogus card as the said establishment was not in existence on the day on which the Card was given to the complainant. The [-4-] material on record shows that applicant no.1 has formed a gang to cheat persons and by giving them false assurances that they are doing business of giving service and jobs in foreign countries. As far as applicant no.2 is concerned, the only role assigned to him is that he was present at the air port when applicant no.1 dropped the complainant and witness Mohd. Moinuddin at the air port when they were to go to Hongkong. No other material is pointed out in respect of applicant no.2. 5. The material on record in respect of applicant no.1 is such as to point out an accusing finger towards him. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Directorate of Enforcement Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 19979. SCC (Cri.) Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 19979. SCC (Cri.) Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 19979. SCC (Cri.) 978 978 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused no.1. Hence, application for bail of applicant no.1 is rejected. However, looking to the material on record, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant no.2. [-5-] 6. In the event of arrest, the applicant no.2-Mohd. Ilyas Shaikh be released on bail in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.forty thousand only) with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant no.2 shall report to Worli Police Station Mumbai once in a fortnight till conclusion of the trial. 7. Application is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]