(1) Criminal Application No. 3497 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3497 of 2011 Brijpal Singh s/o. Brijmohan Singh, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Private Service, R/o. Agra Road, Aligarh (U.P.). .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through P.I., Bhagya Nagar Police Station, Nanded. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 22ND AUGUST 2011 (2) Criminal Application No. 3497 of 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 167/2011, registered at Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by Arun Devilal Nail on 28-6-2011, alleging that the Company, namely, Om Financial Services was having its head office at Aligarh and one branch office at Nashik. An advertisement was published in June 2010 in "Lokmat" newspaper. According to the said advertisement, complainant approached the office at Nashik and got the agency and started his agency in the name of Sahyadri Finance Consultancy at Nanded. It is alleged that according to the policy of the Company, 150 proposals for grant of loan to the agriculturists were sent to Nashik office, out of which, 95 proposals were accepted. For those proposals, Rs. 17,00,000/- were deposited by way of demand draft, but thereafter neither all (3) Criminal Application No. 3497 of 2011 proposals were sanctioned nor the amount of loan was given. Hence, the complainant visited the office at Aligarh, where he met one Nitin Arora, who said that a case under Section 420 of IPC was lodged against one Ram Kansana, who was incharge of Nashik office. It is stated that 5 % commission was given to one Adv. Shekhar Gupta. It is alleged that thereafter also, except 3 cheques, 4 cheques were bounced. Hence, the complainant visited the head office and met the Director, namely, R.P. Sing, who drove the complainant outside the office. Hence, the complainant lodged the report against nine persons who were office bearers of Nashik office as well as Aligarh office. 4. The present applicant, namely, Brijpal Singh s/o. Brijmohan Singh, is the Manager of Aligarh office. It is submitted that he has no concern with the said transaction and he has not accepted any amount from the complainant, as well as, from the farmers. It is argued that the fraud is committed by Ram Kansana, Manager of office at Nashik, and he is absconding. 5. After perusal of the investigation papers which were made available by the learned APP for inspection purpose and the contents of FIR, it appears that the though the complainant tried to get loan from Nashik office as well as Aligarh office by (4) Criminal Application No. 3497 of 2011 visiting numerous times, however, inspite of compliances and deposit of demand draft of Rs. 17,00,000/-, neither loan amount was given nor any cheques were encashed. It also appears that the office at Nashik is regional office, whereas loan proposals were finalized at the head office i.e. Aligarh office and the agency of the complainant was approved by head office i.e. Aligarh office. Hence, the amount deposited by the complainant at Nashik office is to be forwarded to head office at Aligarh, and the office bearers i.e. Directors were to be benefited therefrom. Hence, the attempt made to pass on responsibility on the Nashik regional office, sidetracking Aligarh office is, apparently, improper. 6. Moreover, the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/-, which was remitted by the complainant herein, is yet to be recovered. The documents are to be seized. The investigation is still under progress. Moreover, the supplementary statement dated 29-6-2011 of the complainant is, apparently, incriminating against the applicant herein. Hence, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant on bail, at least, at this stage, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 7. Hence, present Criminal Application lacks merits, and hence, same stands dismissed. Present Application is disposed of (5) Criminal Application No. 3497 of 2011 finally. 8. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3497