[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.4188 OF 2007 IN CR.NO.I-59 OF 2007 Kumari Priyanka Ashok Mulgaonkar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.K.S.Patil for Milind A.Kale Advocate for Applicant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 23, 2008 DATE : JULY 23, 2008 DATE : JULY 23, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.159 of 2007 of Vitthalwadi Police Station, Dist.Thane. The said case is mainly under Section 420 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant has stated that the applicant is the Director of company i.e. Eniac Job Works Marketing and Investment Pvt.Ltd. The applicant instigated [-2-] many persons to invest in the scheme of the Company. Several persons believed her and invested in the company. Thereafter, the applicant did not give job as promised nor did she refund the amount of investors and hence, complaint came to be filed. 92 persons have been cheated by the applicant. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant states that co-accused have been granted bail and the case of the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused. However, it is seen that the applicant is the Director of the company and the other persons were employees of the company. The company was floated by the applicant and not other co-accused. Hence, there is no question of parity. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Dhingra V. N.C.T. of Ashok Dhingra V. N.C.T. of Ashok Dhingra V. N.C.T. of Delhi; 2000 ALL MR (Cri.) 1882 Delhi; 2000 ALL MR (Cri.) 1882 Delhi; 2000 ALL MR (Cri.) 1882. He submitted that in the said case, the accused indulged in cheating of a huge amount and looking to the fact that the applicant was in custody for about six months, bail was granted to the applicant. It is seen that in the said case, the applicant had cheated only one [-3-] individual. However, in the present case, the applicant cheated about 92 persons. Hence, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the present case. 6. Looking to the facts of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. 7. Application is rejected and is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]