1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4589 OF 2009 Mallikarjun Pargusam @ Rahul Verma ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Anil K.Lulla and Mr.P.M. Bopardikar for the Applicant. Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 8, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2 The applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC registered with Economic Offences Wing, 2 Unit III, CID, Mumbai, vide C.R.No.80/2006 in C.C.No.156/PW/2006. The applicant was arrested on 31st August, 2009. It is the case of the complainant that he is the proprietor of Mohini Engineers and Contractors and is carrying on business of construction of buildings for the last 13 years. According to him, in the year 2006, one Avinash Suryawanshi and Bharat Gaikwad from Pune approached him with a proposal of one Arch Bishop Dr.Anandraj of RRRDA Cathalic Mission and that he was told that the cathelic mission was interested in construction of 500 bed hospital at village Mulbagal in Bangalore for a total cost of Rs.250 crores. He was told that the expenses would be borne by the cathelic organisation from USA. Accordingly, he along with his said friends went to Bangalore and he was introduced to co-accused Mr.Kartikeyan as mediator of RRRDA. He was shown a land 17 kms away from Bangalore admeasuring 60 acres and he was also introduced to co-accused Dharmalingam. He was asked to deposit Rs.2.5 crores with the trustees as per 3 the terms of the contract and was told that the said amount was refundable. He was assured that 100% finance would be given in foreign currency and he was induced to give demand draft and he was told that after the draft was given, he would be given contract. Accordingly, he prepared two demand drafts of Rs.2.5 crores and thereafter, he was introduced to the present applicant as Financial Executive of RRRDA by co-accused Dharmalingam. According to the complainant, later on, he came to know that the real name of the applicant as Mallikkarjun. On 15th June, 2009, he received a mail from co-accused Arch Bishop to contact the present applicant and complete the payment of terms and conditions. He was, therefore, told by the present applicant to cancel the draft of Rs.1 crore and give the amount in cash as EMD to be given to the Committee members. Accordingly, the complainant met the applicant and Kartikeyan and handed over Rs.20 lakhs in cash and got the copy of  Payment of Authorization from the present applicant at 4 Pondecherry. Thereafter, he was asked to be in touch with the present applicant and complete the bank transaction. He was then informed that the EMD should be paid to the present applicant and after receiving the total payment of Rs.270 crores, he shall start the construction of the hospital and agreement was executed on 26th June, 2009 after the present applicant came to Bombay. He gave a further amount of Rs.20 lakhs to the applicant. Thereafter, he received demand draft along with the covering letter from Bank of West. The present applicant induced him to make payment of Rs.80 lakhs to him and collect nine demand drafts amounting Rs.135 crores from him. The present applicant on 27th July, 2006 handed over demand drafts with RBI permission and NOC letter from Indian Medical Council. When these demand drafts were deposited, he learnt that the demand drafts were fake and were not issued by the bank and therefore, the present complaint has been filed. 5 3 Counsel for the applicant very vehemently urged that initial representation was not made by the present applicant and initially, the complainant had met Kartikeyan who was released on bail and also the Dharmalingan and only after, he had prepared the demand draft of Rs.2.5 crores, he was introduced to the present applicant. He submitted that the applicant had not cleared his 10th standard examination and was not a co-conspirator as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the applicant had no role to pay in the said offence and it was probable that the present applicant has not passed the 10th standard would be conversant in preparation of false document on a compute and a laptop. He further submitted that recovery has been made at the instance of the present applicant and whatever was recovered is to the tune of 2.50 crores. He, therefore, submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 4 The learned APP submitted that the 6 applicant does not have a fixed place of residence and that he is in the habit of changing his residence very often and he was absconding for a period of three years. 5 After having perused the complaint and reply filed by the prosecution, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Prima facie, it does appear that the applicant was one of the co- conspirators who had received the money from the complainant and gave him nine demand drafts and NOC from Indian Council of Medical Research, letter from Reserve Bank of India, letter from Ministry of Finance which are all forged documents and as a result, he is also responsible for inducing the present complainant for parting with the huge amount of Rs.95 lakhs. The laptop, hard disc, camera and mobile phone have been made at the instance of the applicant and during the course of investigation, it has transpired that his real name is Mallikarjun and that he is a habitual criminal and that more than 7 one offence is pending against him at Mamlapuram Police Station, Tamil Nadu. The applicant, if released on bail, is likely to abscond. It would be very difficult for the police officials to arrest him since he was absconding for a period of three years and since he does not have a fixed place of residence and he has been changing his residence from town to town. This is not a fit case for grant of bail. 6 Application is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.)