Cri.ApplicationNo.3657/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3657 OF 2011 Sou.Neeta @ Sonia w/o Sachin Jain ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr Sachin S.Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant Mrs R.K.Ladda, A.P.P. for respondent-State Mr M.P.Tripathi, Advocate for complainant to assist A.P.P. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 8th September 2011 PER COURT 1. Perused the investigation papers, which were made available for perusal purpose and heard respective learned Counsel for the parties finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending her arrest under C.R.No.122/2011, registered at Shivajinagar Police Station, District Beed for offence punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information and Technology Act. 3. It appears that crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant viz. Satish Chandmal Lodha on Cri.ApplicationNo.3657/2011 2 19.5.2011 wherein he alleged that the complainant was defrauded by the applicant namely Neeta @ Sonia Sachin Jain to the tune of Rs.85 lacs by assuring him to assign high and respectable post in Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers (R.C.F.). According to the complainant, initially amount of Rs. 25 lacs was given to the applicant’s husband by the complainant and out of the remaining amount of Rs.60 lacs, the first installment of Rs.25 lacs was given to the applicant’s husband namely Satish Suresh Jain on 15.4.2010 in his office at Kondana, Pune whereas the second installment of Rs.35 lacs was given by the complainant to the applicant herein in the second week of May 2010 at her residence at Pune. 4. Accordingly, name of the applicant herein reflected in the contents of first information report as specific act has been attributed to her and there is specific allegation made against her that she has received the amount of Rs.35 lacs from the complainant at her house as afore stated and the said amount is yet to be recovered. 5. It is also revealed during the investigation that the applicant’s husband issued some cheques to the complainant, which were also dishonoured and returned unpaid. However, prima facie it revealed in the investigation that machinery worth Rs.13,62,000/- was recovered from the applicant’s husband. Cri.ApplicationNo.3657/2011 3 6. Considering the very fact that the amount of Rs.35 lacs was given to the applicant herein by the complainant at her residence in second week of May 2010, and the said amount has not been recovered so far and also considering the allegations made against her and further considering the fact that the applicant was not available for the investigation purpose so far, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is necessary for the further progress in the investigation for proper perspective and hence present application deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, present application lacs merits and the same stands dismissed. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) (vvr/3657.11criappln)