- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2516/2010 Toni Darshanlal Pawar, age 34 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Halkheda Tq.Muktainagar Dist.Jalgaon. ...Applicant.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] The Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon. Dist.Jalgaon. ...Respondents... ..... Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for applicant. Smt.V.A. Shinde, APP for respondent nos.1 & 2. ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATE: 28.07.2010 - 2 - PER COURT: 1] By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for the relief of bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.89/2010 registered in Muktainagar Police Station of District Jalgaon for the alleged offence u/s 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] It appears from the record that when the application was moved on 9.7.2010, interim protection was granted to the present applicant to release him in the event of his arrest in connection with the said crime. 3] Today when the application came up for final hearing, I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 4] The papers of investigation disclose that the said complaint came to be lodged on the complaint of one Shashibhanu Rajayogi Shivramdas r/o Gujarat. On 13.5.2010, he had approached the present applicant to purchase one stone known as Nagmani (a holy stone), which he purchased for consideration of rupees nine lakhs from the present applicant and one Govind. After he went to his native place, the precious stone purchased by him was tested and it appears on test, the precious stone did not appear to be genuine, but appeared to be fake. It further - 3 - appeared thereafter that again a call was received by him from the friend of the applicant on 7.6.2010 that now another precious stone was available and they offered to sell the said precious stone to the complainant. The agreed price for the purchase of said stone was also rupees nine lakhs. It appears that even though earlier they were cheated as per the allegations in the complaint, again they came at the place where the applicant and his friend were residing on 7.6.2010 and purchased another precious stone for consideration of rupees nine lakhs, which according to them, is not original precious stone. Hence, the complaint for the offence u/s 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5] A question is required to be considered that if the complainant parted with rupees nine lakhs to purchase the precious stone, which on test appeared to be fake stone and not genuine, whether it can be believed that within seven days again he parted with the same consideration of rupees nine lakhs to purchase similar type of precious stone and accepted the stone without testing at the spot, but tested it after he went back to his native place in Gujarat. From the allegations in the complaint, it appears that something is required to be read in between the lines, which is not coming before the Court and to settle the score otherwise, the complaint appears to have been lodged. In the circumstances, a case is made out to exercise the discretion in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the applicant. Hence, the following order. 6] Application is allowed. Interim protection granted to the applicant vide order - 4 - dated 9.7.2010 is hereby confirmed and to be continued till filing of the charge- sheet. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V. Potdar, J.) ndk/cr2871022