* 1 * ABA.188.2011 18.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 188 OF 2011 Ganpati Prakash Raikar ...... Applicant V/S. State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent Mr. Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Jayesh Talekar, Advocate for Intervenor. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State-respondent. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 18th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The applicant herein alongwith two others is accused in C.R. No. 185 of 2010 filed under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with 34 Indian Penal code. He seeks anticipatory bail in connection with the above FIR. His first application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the Sessions Court by its order dated 18th February, 2011. The other two accused persons were arrested and have been released on bail. The record shows that the applicant, had closed his office, left his * 2 * ABA.188.2011 18.7.2011 permanent residence and his whereabouts were not known for a long time until he filed an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The complainant in C.R. No.185 of 2010 is one Chandrakant Chipkar who had, on voluntary retirement from service, received substantial amount of Rs.50,00,000/- as retirement benefits. The applicant, a chartered accountant had helped him in filing income -tax returns in respect of the amount. However, after gaining confidence of the complainant, he lured the complainant into investing almost the entire retirement benefits into the business of Spier Motors” carried “ on by all the accused. On the false representations and promises by the applicant, a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- came to be invested by the complainant in purchasing cars, two in his own name, two in the name of his son and two in the name of the daughter. The returns that the complainant was to receive under the scheme was of Rs.7,000/- for one of the cars and Rs.9,000/- per month for the other cars. Later, the complainant realised that none of the vehicles were purchased in his name and in the names of his family. The second allegation of the complainant is that in the year 2007 the applicant and his co-accused took a total sum of Rs.48,53,500/- in cash, as well as, by cheques, partly by way of loan and partly for investment in business on false promises of good returns. The complainant, however, received neither the return * 3 * ABA.188.2011 18.7.2011 of the money invested nor the returns of investment. The complainant alleges that the applicant and his co-accused have similarly cheated several persons including Nathuram J. Thakur, Vishwas R. Parte, Vishaka Vishwas Parte, Sudhir Rane, Dipali Sawant, Dinanath B. Gharat, Manisha Dinanath Gharat, Chitra Pednekar, Vivek S. Pail, Pratibha Ghadge, S.P. Borate, Ashok Borate and Mitalal Soni. 3. Atleast as regards part of the amount which was given by cheque and the amount which was given to the applicant as personal loan, there is no dispute. Mr. Gole, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant desires to return the entire amount of the complainant, however, presently he is short of funds. It appears that during the pendency of the present application the applicant has paid a couple of lakhs of rupees to the complainant. Now he wants atleast 6 months to pay the entire balance amount. Mr. Gole, requests that the present application be deferred until then. Firstly, the application for anticipatory bail cannot be used for the purpose of gaining time for making payment. Secondly, considering the allegations contained in the complaint, return of the admitted amount which is about Rs. 14,00,000/- would not absolve the applicant of the allegations made in the complaint. Since the complaint makes out the ingredients of the offence alleged against the applicant and since it is alleged that the * 4 * ABA.188.2011 18.7.2011 complainant is one of several persons who has been cheated in this manner and the fact that admittedly the applicant was not available to the police for some time, he having closed his office and left permanent residence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Hence, the application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]