sat 1 cri.appln, 1416-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1416 OF 2011 Hemang Shukla ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Ms.Anjali Patil for the Applicant. Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J OCTOBER 7, 2011 P.C :- 1 Heard learned Advocate Ms.Anjali Patil for the applicant and learned APP Mrs.Mane for the State. 2 The applicant is one of the accused in the case registered vide CR No.101/2011 with the LT Marg Police Station which is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The charges are for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC. There are three more accused along with the applicant. One of the them has been released on bail by this Court by Order dated 5th August, 2011 passed in Criminal Application No.992 of 2011. sat 2 cri.appln, 1416-2011 3 The complainant Kishanbihari Satyanarayan Kagazi resident of Karmaichle Road, Mumbai-26, was doing business of gold and diamond jewellery. It is alleged that the applicant along with the co-accused Rajendra had been taking jewellery from the complainant from time to time and was also making payments. In the present case, the jewellery worth Rs. 1,90,00,000/- was taken and the payment was not made. The complainant tried his level best to get the payment from the applicant and said co-accused. The applicant was out of reach. His mobile phone was also not responding. The applicant started giving evasive answers on mobile phone. The complainant, therefore, approached the police. The police had registered offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust and a forgery against the applicant and other co-accused. During the course of investigation, property worth Rs.19 lakhs has been recovered from the co-accused. 4 It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that nothing has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the co-accused in fact are the brain behind the whole crime. The applicant was doing the business of jewellery sat 3 cri.appln, 1416-2011 before opening the new establishment ‘Honey Jewellers’ where the alleged offence had been committed. It is also submitted that the liability was of civil nature. The complainant has used police machinery to recover money by short cut means. 5 After having gone through the record, it appears that there were earlier transactions also with the applicant and other accused. It is, therefore, possible that the transaction was predominantly of civil nature. In the circumstances, in my opinion, discretionary powers need to be exercised in favour of the applicant. 6 The applicant is permanent resident of Bhayander. He stays with his parents and wife. He has got one child who is studying in school at Bhayander. He is the only earning member in his family. He is not likely to run away and evade the trial. The question of tampering with the evidence does not arise that the evidence has been collected and the charge sheet has been filed. Hence, I pass the following order :- a The applicant be released on bail in the sum of sat 4 cri.appln, 1416-2011 Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount or two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each in CR No.101 of 2011 registered with L.T.Marg Police Station. The applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Thane and Mumbai District without prior permission of trial court. He shall attend the office of Investigating Officer at LT Marg Police Station for a period of 30 days in between 6 to 7 p.m. daily from the date of his release. 7 Application stands disposed of. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.)