1 Cri.Appln.No.1048/2011 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1048/2011. ( Uttam Bhujangrao Kanthale Vs. The State of Maharashtra ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SS Choudhari, Adv. for Applicant/s; Mr. NB Patil, APP for State. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 25 th April, 2011. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) The accused/applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.13/2011 registered at MIDC police Station, district Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472, 406, 415, 416 r/w 34 of IPC. 3) The case of the complainant illustrate, the accused/applicant in a network with his other colleagues, facilitated collection of rupees eight lakhs with assurance to provide employment to needy youths, either son or the relations of the lecturers, including the complainant. Consequent upon such assurance, initially installment of Rs.4,00,000/- for each of the candidates,totalling Rs.40,00,000/- were paid. For such meeting, the accused/applicant was also allegedly present. It was assured that appointment orders will be subsequently issued and based on the same, second instalment of Rs.4,00,000/-, totalling Rs.40,00,000/- again were paid to the accused/applicant and his colleagues at the residence. The appointment orders, which were purportedly issued did not inform any posting and a show was made to ensure parting of huge amount by the son, nephew of the complainant. 4) Mr.Choudhari, learned Counsel submits, a private complaint, 2 Cri.Appln.No.1048/2011 lodged after substantial long duration by Dattatraya Dnyanoba Nalavade, is a counter to the complaint lodged by the accused/applicant against one Bhagwandas Vishnudas Vyas and his colleagues way back in 2001 and 21.11.2009. According to him, these two persons are shown as witnesses in the complainant. 5) Even accepting what Mr.Choudhari attributes, however, in the said report/complaint of the accused/applicant, one thing is clear that based on the collection of certain amounts, referred above, two persons were harassing, humiliating or terrorizing the accused/applicant. These provide spices to the events referred in the complaint of Dattatraya Nalavade. Custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant is essential, as two of his colleagues have absconded, few are in fetters, speciment signatures are to be collected, other sources are to be notified. Application lacks merit, dismissed. Interim protection vacated. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/