1 Cri.A.4708.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4708 OF 2011 Kamlakanta S/o Bidyadhar Sahoo, R/o M/s Inway Corporation, Plot No. 105, BHB Colony, Barumundha PS Khandagiri, Bhubaneshwar,District Khurda (Orissa) ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, and another ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.B.Gaghuvanshi, Advocate holding for Shri.A.B.Girase,Advocate for Applicant. Shri.D.R.Kale,A.P.P. for Respondent. Shri.L.D.Vakil and Shri G.K.Naik Thigle, Advocates for original complainant.. ... CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned advocate on both sides. 2. The applicant claims to be a partner of M/s “Inway Corporations” situated at Bhubaneshwar (Hereinafter referred to as “M/s Inway” for the sake of brevity). According to the applicant, the agreement dated 2nd July, 2008 was entered with 2 Cri.A.4708.11 “Ajanta Infrastructures Ltd.”(Hereinafter referred to as “Ajanta” for the sake of brevity). On the basis of record, it can be said that “M/s Inway” was to procure scrap from “Orissa Small Industries Corporation” (Hereinafter referred to as “OSIC” for the sake of brevity) in favour of “Ajanta” and for that particular amount was to go to “OSIC” and particular amount was retained by “M/s.Inway”. It is not necessary to go into minor details of the agreement, since it had mentioned that when installment by “Ajanta would be paid to “M/s. Inway” till actual delivery of scrap to “Ajanta”, “M/s Inway” would pay interest or allowed “Ajanta” to pick up the scrap from another establishment Chandaka Industrial Estate. It is main ground that “Ajanta” had paid to “M/s Inway” a sum of Rs. 2,25,00,000/-, and out of sum Rs.64,00,000/- was deliver to “OSIC”. 3. The interest for the month June to October 2008 was paid to “Ajanta” as scrap was not delivered. After 2008, no interest has been paid. 3 Cri.A.4708.11 At latter point of time “M/s Inway” delivered the cheque in favour of “Ajanta” to the tune of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- as the scrap was not delivered. This money was paid by way of return. This cheque was dishonoured on account of stop payment. 4. Coming to the stage of investigation, the investigation is still pending. The Investigation Agency will have to find out the bonafides of the present applicant “M/s Inway”. I have perused the investigation papers, the same is pending and the police may have to investigate various other transaction which “M/s Inway” entered with another persons so as to find out commercial status. As on today prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The explanation is said to have given by the applicant that “Ajanta” could pick up the scrap from Chandaka Industries Estate, as per the term of agreement. It appears that except asking “Ajanta” to pick up the material from Chandaka Industries Estate, no arrangements 4 Cri.A.4708.11 were made to lift the said material. Alternatively the agreement provided that money could be repaid by “M/s Inway to “Ajanta”. The fact that the cheque was delivered to “Ajanta” clearly goes to show that “M/s Inway” never intended to allow “Ajanta” to pick up scrap from Chandaka Industries Estate. Hence, this explanation cannot be accepted. . In my view while the investigation is pending if present applicant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will abscond and may not be available for investigation. Police are yet to carry out the investigation. For this reason, the application is required to be rejected. Hence, the following order. . Application for bail is rejected. Sd/- [ R.Y.GANOO, J.] MTK 5 Cri.A.4708.11