1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5593 OF 2009 Mahadev Eknath Jagdale ....Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Mr.S.S. Kulkarni i/b. Mr.Sachin Chavan for Applicant Mr.H.J. Dedhia  APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with an offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered vide C.R. No. I-319/2009 with Rabale Police Station. 3. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Applicant and other Accused in collusion with each other, constructed a chawl at Gothivali Village, Navi Mumbai and constructed 28 rooms and delivered the possession to the Complainant and the other 2 purchasers. It is alleged that the present Applicant and others had made a representation that land belonged to them. However, after delivering the possession, the CIDCO Authority demolished the entire chawl since the land on which the said chawl was constructed belonged to them. After demolition of the chawl, the Complainant and other purchasers realized that they had been cheated. It is alleged that the present Applicant had signed the agreement of the said chawl. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was only working as a supervisor and he was bound to act on the instructions of his master and except signing the agreement of the purchasers, no other role has been attributed to the present Applicant. He further submitted that the transaction essentially is a civil dispute, however, he has been falsely implicated by filing a criminal complaint. He further submitted that there was a delay of 15 days in filing the said complaint. He submitted that the Applicant is bed-ridden and he is suffering from paralytic stroke and he is in the hospital. 5. In my view, submission made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant cannot be accepted. The 3 Applicant had signed some of the agreements and it was alleged that he had made a representation that the land and structure belonged to the main accused. Taking into consideration the allegations made against the Applicant, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail since large number of people were cheated. Application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. 6. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)