IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1621 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1621 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1621 OF 2008 Shri Shaikh Mukhtar Hussain & ors. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Raja Thakare i/b. Shreeram Shirsat for the applicants. S.R.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 16th June 2008. DATED: 16th June 2008. DATED: 16th June 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this application filed under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short), the applicants are seeking pre-arreset bail apprehending their arrest in C.R.No.97/2008 registered with Hadapsar Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) on the basis of the complaint filed by one Mrs.Saraswati Sasne. 3. The factual matrix reveals that the complainant was induced by the applicants to invest Rs.31,750/- on the promise that M/s.U & V Marketing and Distribution would give her three Kisan Patras (saving certificates) each worth Rs.5,000/- of 5 years duration. However, after receipt of the amount, only three saving certificates of Rs.1,000/- each, having term of 8 years, were handed over to the informant/ complainant. The informant/ complainant was also provided with free coupon to enable her to stay with her family members free of cost for two days in any of the resorts run by M/s.Suman Motels Ltd. But, when the complainant approached M/s.Suman Motels, she was asked to pay extra amount at the rate of Rs.500/- per day. Thus, she filed complaint that she is deceived by the applicants. 4. On the above factual backdrop, crime came to be registered for investigation against the applicants for the offences under sections 406, 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The applicants unsuccessfully moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By common order dated 6th May, 2008, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the anticipatory bail observing as under: "After considering these facts I find that the office bearers of two companies floated various scheme to attract the poor investors and the evidence collected by the IO shows that many persons have been deceived. It is, in this circumstance, I find that the custodial interrogation is very much necessary to dig out the scam. Hence it is not the fit case for granting anticipatory bail....." - 3 - 5. The applicants have now invoked jurisdiction of this Court under section 438 of Cr.P.C. 6. Mr.Thakare, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, reiterating the submissions extracted in the order of the trial Court, prayed for pre-arrest bail in favour of applicants. 7. The learned A.P.P., during the course of hearing, drew my attention to Exh.D ("Free Stay Coupon" issued by M/s.Suman Motels Ltd.) to whom the present applicants; wherein, in bold letters, it is certified that the holder of the coupon would be entitled to one night/two days free stay. Whereas the very same coupon carries in small type "terms and conditions"; wherein it is mentioned that the voucher is valid for a one day stay only. As stated, the said terms and conditions are printed in small letters, which normally go unnoticed. When such coupons are presented, the terms and conditions printed on it in small letters are put in service and the holder of the coupon is compelled to pay additional charges for another day. 8. The aforesaid scheme floated by the applicants - 4 - appears to have duped lot many persons as such it has achieved special significance for investigation. It is for the investigating agency to decide the mode and manner of investigation to investigate the offence. This is not a case wherein the applicants are falsely implicated. Thus, in my considered view, this is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Investigation is still incomplete. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted at this stage. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application for pre-arrest bail on the relevant consideration by a well reasoned order. Application is, thus, liable to be rejected. 9. Since I am not inclined to accept the prayer for anticipatory bail, I propose to follow the route adopted by the Apex Court in the orders passed in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) Nos.4479/2008; 4486/2008; 4490/2008 dated 9th June, 2008 (unreported); wherein the Apex Court, while rejecting the prayer for protection under section 438 of Cr.P.C., has directed the petitioners therein to surrender before the concerned Court and move for regular bail with direction to the Court to dispose of the application on the day it is presented provided advance intimation is given to the prosecution. - 5 - 10. Following the above route, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, if the applicants surrender before the Sessions Court and move for regular bail, the concerned Court would do well to dispose of the application on the day it is presented. Needless to mentioned that before the application for bail is moved, the prosecuting agency will be given 72 hours advance intimation as to the date on which the application is proposed to be moved. 11. In the meanwhile, the protection already operating in favour of the applicants granted vide order dated 22nd May, 2008 is extended by another period of one week. 12. It is needless to mention that rejection of prayer to grant anticipatory bail in terms of section 438 of Cr.P.C. shall not be considered as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The regular bail Court shall be free to consider the question of grant of regular bail on its own merits. 13. In the result, application is rejected in terms of this order. - 6 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE