1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1433 OF 2009 Sunil Nilkanth Sathaey .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b K.J.Patil and S.V.Kore for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 9TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 9TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 9TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned senior counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.219 of 2008 of Sangli City police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and eight others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution has registered an offence on the basis of a complaint lodged by Amol Arun Chowgule. It appears that a company by name, Quest Net, floated a scheme inviting people at large to buy certain products displayed on their website on payment of Rs.29,440/- and Rs.460/- as registration charges. As per the scheme the investors were also encouraged to bring six more investors/customers and if they do so, 2 2 2 it was declared that the company would pay them Rs.11,500/-. It appears that several persons invested in the said scheme and they also brought more customers and thereby earned profit from the scheme. The present applicant is also one of such customers, who initially invested an amount of Rs.29,440/- and, thereafter brought more customers and earned profits from the scheme. Admittedly, the applicant is neither a Director nor an employee of the said company. The only role assigned to him is that he use to deliver lectures in the seminars, organised by the company, of investors and use to convince them to invest in the scheme. Almost all the persons shown as accused in the present case, according to Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, have allegedly played similar role. It is very pertinent to note that so far the police have not shown the Directors, Managing Director or employees of the company as accused nor have they made any efforts to arrest them till this date. In my prima facie opinion, merely because the applicant encouraged others to invest in the scheme, on the basis of their own experience of the scheme, they cannot be stated to have committed the alleged offence. However, I leave it to the investigating agency to carry further investigation and then to decide whether to file charge-sheet against the applicant or not. At this stage I am 3 3 3 convinced that custody of the applicant would not be necessary and they can interrogate him even without his arrest. Hence the following order: . In the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount subject to condition stipulated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is directed to report the concerned police station on every alternate day between 10 am and 12 noon till 30th April, 2009 and thereafter on every alternate Sunday between 10 am and 12 noon till filing of the charge-sheet, however, if the charge-sheet is not filed within 90 days from the date of his formal arrest he shall continue to report on alternate Sunday, as mentioned above, only for a period of four months from the date of his formal arrest. The application is disposed of. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. 4 4 4 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)