1 BAG-277.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE - CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.277 OF 2011 Ishan Vasant Deshmukh @ Prasad Vasant Kulkarni .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH INTERVENTION APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2011 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.277 OF 2011 Ishan Deshmukh @ Prasad Vasantrao Kulkarni .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent And M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. .... Intervener Shri A.A.H. Ponda with Ms Neha Palshikar Bhide for the Applicant. Ms P.P. Shinde, APP, for the State. S/Shri Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Subodh Desai i/b M/s. Nanu Hormasjee & Co. for the Intervener. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: MARCH 31, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for bail by the 2 BAG-277.11 applicant in Crime No.357 of 2009, registered with the Swargate Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The applicant was a licensed agent of M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited. In 2008, the applicant had introduced three clients from Doddanvar family for policies in respect of which annual premia were Rs.1,50,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000,00/- and Rs. 50,00,000/-. The applicant had received a hefty commission of Rs.80,85,000/- and gift of Rs. 2,69,99,695/- from the complainant for introducing these policies. He transferred Rs. 3,00,00,000/- to the account of his wife. The complainant received a request to cancel the policies of client Pravin Doddanvar and for refund of premium of Rs.10,00,00,000/- on 25th October, 2008. On 6th November, 2008, applications from Doddanavars were received for conversion of their policies from one plan to another. On 14th December, 2008, the clients complained that they had not requested for any such new policies and that instead of refunding Rs.12,00,00,000/-, in order to earn his commission, the applicant had invested the amount in policies. The complainant-company 3 BAG-277.11 refunded the entire amount to clients and then filed a report on which an offence was registered. 3. The applicant applied for and was granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by his order dated 30th July, 2009. The State sought cancellation of this order by filing Criminal Application No. 4356 of 2009. This application was disposed of by an elaborate 22 page order dated 28th June, 2010, whereby the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was modified, limiting the anticipatory bail till the filing of charge-sheet and permitting the applicant to apply for regular bail before the concerned Court which is seized of the matter. 4. The charge-sheet has already been filed in the case. The hand-writing expert's report, which has been received, does not go against the applicant. Considering the fact that the applicant had already been granted anticipatory bail, ordinarily the learned Magistrate should have entertained the application for bail and in any case, the applicant could have been continued on bail at least by the Court of Sessions noting the observations of the Supreme 4 BAG-277.11 Court in the Judgment of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.7615 of 2009. In view of this, the applicant be released on the same terms and conditions on which he was admitted to anticipatory bail by the order dated 30-7-2009. In addition, to enable the I.O. to interrogate the applicant, the applicant shall appear before the I.O. on 20-4-2011 at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter as and when required by the I.O.. With this modification in the order passed, the application for bail is accordingly disposed of. 5. In view of the order passed in the main application, no order is required to be passed on Intervention Application No.122 of 2011 and the same also stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)