- :: 1 :: - Criminal Application No.5374/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5374 OF 2010 Anand s/o Tulshiram Meshram & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri N.B. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 10th January, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. The accused/ applicants seek exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Crime No.130/2010, of Bhokardan Police Station for an offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A financial Company Raynoldas is established, informed to be a multinational or an international company with fund- managed Company. The accused/ applicant No.1 Anand is a teacher while accused/applicant No.2 Samadhan is engaged in business. The complainant Samadhan informed police that it was at - :: 2 :: - Criminal Application No.5374/2010 the behest of present accused/ applicants he was allured to invest in the said Company for which certificates were issued. Even commissions were assured. It is explicit, the present accused/ applicants tried to influence to develop fortune of the poor investors and articulised the scheme in the villages, to which several persons are victims of such deposits. Depositors learnt of being duped at a very late stage, by that time the said Raynolds was shut out including its website. Role of the present accused/ applicants even if the accused/applicant No.1 is a primary teacher, has to co-ordinate such deposits from the complainant Samadhan and several others. The accused/ applicants, after the F.I.R. dated 9.12.2010, have made their presence unavailable. If they are honest at their end, they could have informed the police machinery names of their friends and associates, who allured several depositors to invest and that the accused/ applicants are also one of the persons having been so cheated. No such exercise is done. On the contrary, an arrogance is demonstrated by both the applicants in dealing with depositors. No case for entertaining the application for pre-arrest bail. Application rejected. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri5374.10