{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4002 OF 2009 Jaishingh s/o Sadashiv Mapari APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.A.G.Kanade, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2nd December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.327/2009 registered with Parner Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant, followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. {2} 3. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the allegations in the compliant, against the applicant are in respect of an incident of the year 2005 or somewhere in the year 2003 and taking advantage of the ensuing assembly elections, the present complaint has been filed. According to learned counsel for the applicant, bare perusal of the complaint indicates that letters of interview and appointment were issued to the complainant by the co-accused and not by the present applicant. It is tried to urge that another complaint is also filed against the co-accused in which the present applicant is shown as a witness. It is urged that considering these facts, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned APP has opposed the application, as the investigation is still in progress and there are antecedents of similar nature to the credit of the applicant. 5. Considering the submissions, it has to be noted that there appears to be a syndicate of certain persons, who, taking disadvantage of rising unemployment, under the garb of providing employment, collect money from them under the assurance to provide a job. The said tendency needs to be curbed down somewhere. The contents of the complaint clearly indicate that the complainant came in contact with the co-accused through the present applicant and at the instance of present applicant, the complainant has handed over the cash to the co-accused and in {3} turn the co-accused had handed over the fake letters of interview and appointment. In the premise, no case is made out to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln4002-09