1 600.10-appln bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 600 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Shailendra Omkarnath Agarwal & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.V.S.Shinde, APP for the Applicant. Mr.Aniket V.Nikam for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. .... CORAM :- J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE :- AUGUST 22, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents in Crime No.427 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 406,420,467,468,471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with the Bhosari Police Station, Pune, which is now transferred to EOW Pune for investigation. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, respondents were the Directors of a Private Limited Company. They proposed to convert the same into Public Limited Company and float public issue in the shares in the market. On that assurance, some persons gave money to them. The complainant Lulla Hari Motumal gave an amount of Rs.1.80 crores on 2nd August, 2006. However, neither the company was converted into Public Limited Company nor public issue was floated in the market. The 2 600.10-appln amount was also not returned. According to him, he was defrauded by the respondents and was made to advance such a huge amount on the false assurance. On that basis, the offence was registered. During the investigation, it was revealed that one Hetal Maheschandra Pawani had also invested an amount of Rs.90,000/- and that amount was also not returned. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondents makes a statement that due to certain difficulties, the company could not float public issue. An amount of Rs.1.80 crores lying with the Bank has already been frozen by the Police. He also states that an amount of Rs.20 lacs has been paid to the complainant Lulla Hari Motumal and an amount of Rs.10 lacs has been paid to Hetal Maheshchandra Pawani by demand drafts. He also offers to deposit the balance amount of Rs.60 lacs within four weeks. The learned APP after taking instructions, makes a statement that the demand drafts issued by the accused persons are still lying with the complainant Lulla Hari Motumal and witness Hetal Maheshchandra Pawani, but their validity period has expired. The learned Counsel for the respondents undertakes to get them revalidated. 4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, with consent of the parties, the application may be disposed of with following directions: a. The respondents shall re-validate the demand drafts issued in the name of the complainant Lulla Hari Motumal and witness Hetal Maheshchandra Mawani within a period of two weeks and shall deposit an amount of Rs.60 lacs with this Court. An amount of Rs.1.80 crores, which is frozen by the Police shall, also be released and be deposited with this Court. Eventually, whole of the amount of Rs.1.80 crores plus Rs.60 lacs, which may be 3 600.10-appln deposited by the accused-respondents, shall be transferred to the Court dealing with criminal cases. b. In case, the respondents fail to comply with the statement and undertaking of depositing an amount of Rs.60 lacs with this Court within the stipulated period, the anticipatory bail granted by the Trial Court may be liable to be cancelled on that ground itself. c. With these directions, the application stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)