IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4592 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4592 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4592 OF 2008 Shri Sanjay Jaisingh Jadhav ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Vikas Shivarkar for the Applicant. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2009 DATED : JANUARY 21, 2009 DATED : JANUARY 21, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. A complaint has been filed against the present applicant for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420 of the IPC. In the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had given an assurance to the complainant that he would pay certain amount of money towards rent and he had given cheque towards security deposit. When the complainant deposited the said cheque in the bank, the said cheque was dishonoured. He also did not pay any rent to the complainant. When the complainant contacted - 2 - the applicant, he informed him that he would pay Rs.1000/- pay day out of the profit earned by him in the hotel and as understanding between the parties. Inspite of this, after paying Rs.1000/- for sometime, thereafter, no amount has been paid by him. When inquiries were made by him, it transpired that the applicant had absconded. The complainant also learnt that the applicant similarly cheated number of persons. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that mere non-payment of rent and dishonour of the cheque which was given towards security deposit cannot be treated as an offence and the remedy was to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to file a civil suit for recovery of rent. It is further submitted that the applicant is suffering from spondylosis since last 10 years and he is unable to walk and sit properly. 4. All these submissions cannot be accepted. If a complaint is filed alleging that the representation made by the applicant from its inception was fraudulent and - 3 - he had no intention of honouring the representation and on the basis of such a representation if wrongful loss is caused to the complainant and wrongful gain is caused to the accused, the offence under Section 420 is maintainable. It also appears that the applicant had similarly duped other people. Hence, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. The trial court has observed that the applicant had suppressed certain facts from the court. The applicant initially had filed the application for anticipatory bail before the Kolhapur District Sessions Court and the said application was withdrawn. Thereafter, a second application was filed in the Karad District Sessions Court. In the second application, the fact that he had filed the earlier application before the Kolhapur court had been suppressed. The Sessions Court, therefore, was of the view that there was material suppression of the fact by the applicant herein and that was one of the grounds for which his application for anticipatory bail is rejected. In my view, the Sessions Court was justified in rejecting the application on the ground of suppression of fact. For all these reasons, the applicant is not - 4 - entitled to get an order of anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. Since the applicant is having some medical problems, one week’s time is given to the applicant to surrender before the Magistrate. If an application is filed before the Magistrate, it may be considered, expeditiously. 5. The application is disposed of. (V.M. qKANADE, J.) (V.M. qKANADE, J.) (V.M. qKANADE, J.)