1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 27 of 2008 Jaipal Parshuram Patil .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.Shreekant V. Gavand for the applicant. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 7th February 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with offence registered at Mandva police station under C.R. No.40 of 2007 for alleged offence punishable u/s.417 and 420 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case in sort is that the 2 applicant offered to give employment in GAIL (a public sector company) to the nephew of the complainant (First Informant) by receiving from the complainant Rs.40,000/-. Though the complainant paid Rs.40,000/- to the applicant, he did not give the employment to the nephew of the complainant as promised. Thereafter he returned Rs.10,000/- out of Rs.40,000/- but did not return the balance and thereby committed an offence. The complainant further alleged that the applicant had similarly deceived many other persons. No material is placed on record to show that the applicant paid Rs.40,000/- to the applicant for giving the employment. In fact, in the complaint he has stated that the complainant and several other persons had similarly effected money to him but they did not have any evidence regarding payment of any money to the applicant. 3. The offence alleged is not punishable with death or Imprisonment for life but is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of 7 years. 4. Taking into consideration the maximum punishment that can be awarded if the ofence is proved and also taking into consideration the fact that the complainant himself has stated that he does not have any evidence regarding payment of money to 3 the applicant, the applicant is entitled to a bail. 5. The complainant had previously filed an application before the Sessions Judge which was rejected vide order dated 26th December 2007. Two reasons were given by the learned Sessions Judge viz. if the applicant is released on bail it would be difficult for the Investigating Officer to investigate the offence and secondly it was stated that applicant was politically influenced person and he will obstruct in the investigation if he is enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the basis of mere allegation that the applicant is politically connected, it cannot be inferred that the applicant would interfere with the investigation in the absence of any material to that effect being placed on record. No apprehension was expressed before me by the learned APP that applicant would interfere with the investigation in the event he is released on bail. 6. In the circumstances, I pass the following order:- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R . In the event of arrest of the applicant, he 4 shall be released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety or two sureties of the like amount of Rs.50,000/- subject to the condition that the applicant shall not interfere with the investigation in any manner and shall attend the concerned police station once a week on every Monday between 10.00 am and 12 noon initially for a period of four weeks and thereafter on such other date on which he may be specifically summoned for investigation/ interrogation. . This order shall come to an end after charge-sheet is filed whereupon the applicant, if he so desires, may apply to the appropriate court for regular bail. If such an application is made it shall be considered by the court on its own merits without being in any way influenced by any of the observations made in this application which are only prima facie. (D.G. KARNIK, J)