1 Appln.: 3776/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3776 OF 2010 Shri Rahul Vitthal Khade .... Applicant & Ors (Ori. Accused nos. 1 & 2) Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. S.A. Ingawale, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 17th September, 2010 P.C. 1. By the order dated 13th September 2010, the applicants who have filed this application for anticipatory bail, were directed to remain present in the court today in view of the submission of the learned APP that the applicants have been absconding since May 2010. The direction has not been complied with. None of the applicants is present in the Court. Mr. Ingawale, learned counsel for them states that the applicants are presently somewhere in the city of Aurangabad and that the applicant no. 1 is unwell. Mr. Ingawale tenders letter dated 14th September 2 Appln.: 3776/2010 2010, supposed to have been sent from Sangli by courier to the learned counsel at the address of the Court Room No.39, 2nd Floor, High Court Library, High Court, Mumbai The envelope containing the letter has also been produced. It has a slip pasted to it of some Madhur Courier Services, Aurangabad (N.S.). Unlike most of the packets sent via courier, the envelope in this case does not even mention the full address and telephone number of the sender i.e. the applicant. Therefore, it is difficult to accept this was infact sent by courier from Aurangabad. In the letter, which is addressed to the court, applicant no.1 states that as he is keeping indifferent health and has been medically advised not to move from his present residence until 26th September 2010. By the letter, he requests for a date beyond 26th September to enable him to remain present in the Court. There is a medical certificate from one Yashwant Rugnalaya issued by Dr. Pravin Rajhans, (B.A.M.S.) Aurangabad annexed to the letter, which states that the applicant is suffering from some acute ultra enzymes. Considering the entire set of circumstances, it is difficult to believe the certificate. In any case, the letter creates excuse 3 Appln.: 3776/2010 only for applicant No.1 No explanation whatsoever given on behalf of applicant no. 2 for not complying with the directions. Since the applicants have not complied with the directions, the application is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. However, since extensive arguments have been advanced by both sides on merits of the application, the same are being considered hereinafter. 2. On 12th July 2010, one Rajendra Chavan, a Cobbler filed a complaint with Vishrambaug Police Station, Thane against the applicant and his wife alleging that in July 2006, the applicant no.1 who is employed as Section Engineer in Irrigation Department of Zilla Parishad, Sangli re-represented to the complainant and 5 other persons that he has formed a society in the name of Rajashree Shahu Karmachari Sahakari Magas Vargiya Griha Nirman Sanstha under which he would acquire land of 1 guntha for each member for the purpose of building a house under a scheme of the Social Welfare Department. For becoming a member of the society, and for acquiring the land, each member was to pay a sum of Rs.15,500/-. Therefore, the complainant went to the residence of the applicants on 15th 4 Appln.: 3776/2010 August 2006 and paid a sum of Rs.15,500/-. The applicants obtained signature of the complainant on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/- dated 28th August 2006 and also a consent letter. Thereafter whenever the complainant demanded for completion of transaction or atleast for refund of money, the applicants avoided the same. Since more than three months prior to filing of the complaint, the complainant found the applicant was neither attending to his job nor he was found at his residence. Hence, he filed the complaint for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 406 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicants claim that it is a genuine case of the applicants trying to help the members of backward classes by taking advantage of the scheme of State Government vide it’s resolution dated 1st April 1998. However, the learned APP has pointed out that by subsequent G.R. dated 26th March 2002, the Government has specifically directed that no grant be issued under the G.R. dated 1st April 1998 to any new society or organisation, as it was found by the Government that the society to which the grants had been made under the G.R., the work of construction had not been completed. Thus there was 5 Appln.: 3776/2010 almost stay granted to the grant under the G.R. dated 1st April 1998. The entire activity of forming the society and having enrolled members was started by the applicants sometime in the year 2006. Therefore it would be difficult to believe that applicant no.1 was not aware of the subsequent G.R. dated 26th March 2002. Today there are about 357 members enrolled by the society on payment of Rs.15,500/-. 4. In order to show their genuineness, the applicants rely upon the agreement of sale dated 22nd August 2006, by which they allegedly acquired land from one Balkrishna Deshpande and Mukund Deshpande admeasuring 1 Hectare, 39 R. for Rs. 67,78,404/-. However the revenue records show names of third parties as the owners by virtue of the transaction dated 23rd March 2009. Perusal of the Police papers show that prima-facie there is substance in the complaint filed against the applicants. The Police investigation also shows that the applicant has not been attending to his office since 11th May 2010 and that the department in which he is working is proposing to initiate proceedings for unauthorised absence. Also in June 2010, the applicants withdrew the name of their daughter from the school 6 Appln.: 3776/2010 in Sangli. In the circumstances, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota,J)