1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 772 of 2010 Rakesh Lekhram Vaish ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mrs.Neha Palshikar Bhide for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 22nd February 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No. 206 OF 2009 registered at Vijaypur Naka Police Station, Solapur for an alleged offence punishable u/s.420, 409 r/w section 34 of the IPC. 3. The offence alleged is an economic offence. Applicant is a promoter and founder Director of Micron Marketing and Serving 2 Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) The Company is alleged to have floated fraudulent schemes and made several investors to invest money in the company on the assurance that land at different locations would be given to them. Hundreds of people have invested money are alleged to have been duped. The applicant previously made an application before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur who by his order dated 11th February 2010 has rejected the same. The learned Judge has noted that investigation is in progress and Custodial Interrogation is necessary for the purpose of resolving the crime. The view taken by the Learned Addl.Sessions Judge cannot be faulted. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, invited my attention to an order dated 18th January 2010 passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34387 of 2009 and submitted that as Allahabad High Court has already granted bail the applicant deserves bail. I have perused the order. It appears that apart from the present offence, the applicant was involved in some other offences also. This would be clear from paragraph no.(3) of the order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court which reads thus:­ “It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant as well as co­accused 3 Rahul who were armed with knife, are alleged to have caused injury to the informant Radhey Shyam and as per injury report, the injured has sustained one incised wound (injury no.1) and rest of the injuries were contusions. The injury no.1 was kept under observation and X­ray was advised. He further submits that in the absence of X­ray examination and supplementary report, it cannot be determined that the alleged injury was grievous and dangerous to life. He has further contended that the applicant is in jail since 28.10.2009 and the trial has not commenced which is likely to consume some more time to conclude. These observations show that the offence was in relation to an attempt of murder punishable u/s.307 of the IPC. Grant of bail for such an offence does not appear to have any relevance to the present case. 5. The application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)