1 Cri-A-5759-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5759 OF 2010 Suryakant Dhanayya Jawalkote ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.P.G.Sarda,Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs. R.V.Newton, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 28th January, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. 2. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.128/2010 registered with Fouzdar Chawdi Police Station, District Solapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Nilesh, son of the first informant Kashinath Gaikwad, was unemployed. The first informant came to now that the present applicant, who is brother of one Apparao Kamni, is a Railway servant and he used to get some people recruited and appointed on the post of Khalashi from 2 Cri-A-5759-10.sxw the Minister's quota. Therefore, the first informant approached Apparao. Apparao took him to the applicant. They demanded Rs.2,50,000/- for getting a job for the son of the first informant. As per the demand, amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid to Apparao on 1.1.2007 and balance amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid by the first informant and his son to the present applicant. At that time, 7 or 8 other candidates were also present at the house of the applicant. On the same day, the applicant took the son of the first informant and other boys to Delhi and on the next day, each of them was medically examined. The applicant told them that within short time they would get the appointment orders. For about 5 - 6 months, no such order was received. When the first informant again approached the present applicant, he handed over the appointment orders to the son of the first informant and other 7 - 8 candidates and told them that they would get the job soon. When they approached the Railway office at Asansol, they were told that orders were forged and fabricated. In view of this, report was lodged on 23.6.2010. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that Sections 406 and 409 IPC cannot be applicable and that at the most, it is a case under Sec. 420 IPC. In fact, besides Sections 420, Sections 465 and 467 of IPC may also be applicable. It is true that there is delay in lodging the report. From the FIR, it appears that the 3 Cri-A-5759-10.sxw first informant and other candidates were waiting for refund of their money, but when the amount was not refunded for a long time, the first informant decided to lodge the report. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is willing to deposit the amount. If the amount is deposited, it is possible that the first informant may be compensated, but the modus operandi adopted by the present applicant cheating the innocent unemployed young people and then making them pay huge amounts is dangerous for the society at large. Therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to grant bail to the present applicant. 5. Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)