1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3502 OF 2009 Sunil S/o.Udhav Kagne, Age-23 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Waghala, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through P.I.Jintur Police Station, Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. RESPONDENT Mr.R.K.Jadhavar, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 18/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.164/2008, registered in Jintur Police Station of Dist. Parbhani for the alleged offence u/s. 420 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, it appears that said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Ujjwal Sakhare wherein it is alleged that the present applicant alongwith others assured to provide sugar-cane cutters and under that promise, received certain amount from the complainant. So far as the present applicant is concerned, he has accepted an amount by way of an earnest money to provide labourers for that work in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and prior to that he had entered into an agreement which was notarized before the Notary concerned. As inspite of the amount was received, the applicant failed to provide the labourers, hence the complaint came to be lodged, as there is wrongful gain to the applicant and loss to the complainant. 4. Even though it is urged across the bar that there is a contract between the present applicant and complainant, the applicant have not received a single farthing from the complainant, he is falsely implicated in the present case. As there is contract, there is remedy available for complainant for recovery of this amount from the applicant by filing civil suit. Other accused who are involved in the present offence are released on bail, hence prayed for anticipatory bail. 5. Bail application is opposed by the learned APP on the ground that the submissions across the bar are false as to no amount is received by the applicant, which can be gathered from the receipts issued by the present applicant showing that he has received cash in 3 the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under different heads which are on record. The register of Shivneri Lodge shows that on that day, the applicant has visited the complainant where this amount was received by the applicant. 6. Considering these submissions across the bar, the fact is clear that under the promise to provide the labourers for cutting the sugar- cane, the complainant was induced to part with the money i.e. in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which is a wrongful loss to the complainant, but gain to the applicant. Even though the complainant was induced to part with the amount, no labourers were provided. A clear prima facie case of cheating established from the complaint and the documents produced on record. Application sans any merit to exercise the discretion u/s. 438 of Cr.P.C. and hence stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.3502-09