26crn1279-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1279 OF 2010 Mr.Sameer Sudhanshu Gupta. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Manoj Bhat, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application preferred by the applicant for his release on bail during pendency of the trial in the matter of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The alleged incident of cheating occurred somewhere between June 2007 to May 2008 and FIR came to be lodged on or about 27th December, 2008 by the complainant. According to the complainant he was introduced by some 26crn1279-10 2 unknown person to the present applicant for certain investments in share transactions. Accordingly demat account in the name of the complainant was caused to be opened with the share broking firm of the applicant. Allegedly some instruction slips were prepared by the applicant and signatures of the complainant were forged and on the strength of such instruction slips certain shares purchased in the name of the complainant were transferred to third party. At various intervals certain amounts were given by the complainant to the applicant and such amount was totaling more than Rs.12 lakh and odd. However, as the complainant did not get the returns out of such investments in the share, though agreed, he enquired with the applicant. However, certain assurances were given by the applicant. Some cheques were also given of Rs.7.5 lakh and odd and such cheques were deposited by the complainant in his bank account, however, they were dishonored. Reportedly though the notice was issued to the applicant, the complainant did 26crn1279-10 3 not file any complaint under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the applicant. 3. It is also alleged by the complainant that in order to get the money back from the applicant, he met the complainant at some other office place. That time a friend of the complainant had also accompanied. It is further alleged that the applicant lured the complainant to ask his friend to invest still some amount i.e. about Rs.5.5 lakhs in shares and as such by such investment the total investments done by the complainant would be returned. According to the complainant, believing the words of the applicant, his friend also invested an amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs. However, there was no repayment or monetary gain out of such investments. 4. When matter was before another Bench in May, 2010 directions were given to the Investigating Officer to file affidavit in order to show whether the instructions slips have been taken charge of or what is the stage of investigation, however, till today such affidavit is not filed and instead of 26crn1279-10 4 that learned APP says that he will argue the matter orally on instructions from the concerned officer. 5. Considering the above factual position and considering arrest of the present applicant since September, 2009 and considering that the present matter is based on the documentary evidence and considering the factual position that investigation is already over and chargesheet is already filed, present application can be allowed with certain conditions on the applicant of attendance to the concerned police station in order to secure his presence during the trial. Hence, present application is disposed of with following order:- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.1279 of 2010 for regular bail is allowed. [ii] The applicant - Sameer Sudhanshu Gupta, arrested in C.R. No.I-525 of 2008 of Naupada police 26crn1279-10 5 station, Thane, shall be released on bail on his executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety for the like amount or two sureties of Rs.12,500/- each. [iii] On availing the bail, as above, the the applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon till the conclusion of the trial. [iv] The trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made in the present order while dealing with the case so far as merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)