1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5231 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.555 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5231 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5232 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5232 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICAITON NO.5233 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5497 OF 2009 Sayed Mohammed Masood ...Applicant. v/s State of Maharashtra .... Respondent. --- Mr. Subhash Jha i/b V.N. Associates for the applicant in Criminal Application Nos.5231 of 2009, 5232 of 2009 and 5497 of 2009. Mr. R.R. Jaiswal alongwith Mr. R.B. Jaiswal i/b Jaiswal Associates for intervener. Mr. S.G. Rajput for the intervener. Mr. M.S. Mohite i/b Mr. R.A. Jadhav for intervener in Criminal Application No. 555 of 2009. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal for intervener in Criminal Application No. 550 of 2009. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. 2 CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which is registered by various investors vide C.R. No.74 of 2009 with Economic Offence Wing, Unit V, Mumbai, C.R. No.55 of 2009 with the Cuff-Parade Police Station and C.R. No.347 of 2009 with the Amboli Police Station. 3. Applicant is a Managing Director of M/s City Group of Companies and the Chairman of M/s City Limouzin (India) Ltd having its Corporate Office at 102/B, 10th floor, Mittal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai. The said company also have sister concerns viz. City Realcom Ltd., City Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., City Communications Ltd., and City Money Ltd etc. 4. According to the prosecution, the applicant’s company had launched a Scheme “Give a car on rent and earn money staying at home” and it was widely advertised. The complainant and other people contacted the applicant’s company and various amounts have been deposited by them. According to the complainant, a representation was 3 made that as per the said scheme a motor car was to be purchased in the name of investor and the said vehicle was to be taken on rent by the company at the rate of Rs 4,000/- and, accordingly, it was agreed that the said arrangement could continue for a period of sixty months and, thereafter, either vehicle was to be returned to the investor or was to be purchased by the company from the investor. Accordingly various amounts were received by the applicant from number of investors and, later on, it transpired that neither the money was returned nor the car which was to be transferred in the name of the complainant, was ever handed over in favour of the investors. Various complaints have been filed in the State of Maharashtra and also in adjoining States. It is alleged that the complaints have invested their hard earned monies and in some cases their entire savings which they received out of VRS Schemes or insurance money which they had received from Insurance Companies. According to prosecution, modus operandi of the applicant was to secure confidence of the investors, pay some amount for some time and, thereafter, misappropriate the balance amount. 5. Shri Jha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that on the last occasion the applicant was willing to repay the entire amount which was due to investors and accordingly he had given two charts in respect of assets and liabilities of M/s City Limouzin (Inida) Ltd. He then also mentioned that the applicant would sit across the 4 table with the investors in order to show his bonafides. Accordingly, in view of the assurance given by the applicant and only for that purpose interim protection was granted to the applicant and the State Government was directed to give 78 hours notice before arresting him. However, it appears that in spite of assurance given by the applicant, he did not report to the EOW, Crime Branch, Mumbai. Mr. Jha, the learned Counsel of the applicant submitted that since the applicant apprehended that he would be arrested in connection with the complaints which were likely to be filed in Tamilnadu and other States, he could not remain present before EOW and, therefore, he had filed the Criminal Application No.5497 of 2009 in this Court, seeking interim protection. The fact remains that the applicant did not report to the EOW as directed by this Court. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicant also submitted that there are several decisions of the Apex Court which have laid down that in a case where such allegations have been made an opportunity should be given to the applicant to return the money to the investors. 7. I have heard Shri Jha the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant at length. In my view, taking into consideration the nature of allegations which are made by large number of investors who have invested their life savings with the applicant and taking into consideration the allegations which are made in the said complaint, this is not 5 a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. There cannot be any dispute about the ratio of the judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. However, the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances of each case. In my view, taking into consideration the facts as alleged in the complaint by number of complainants, applicant is not entitled to get an order of anticipatory bail. 8. Applications for anticipatory bail are rejected. 9. So far as Criminal Application No.5497 of 2009 is concerned, no particulars have been given regarding the complaints which are likely to be filed in various other States. No blanket order can be passed in respect of such complaints which are likely to be filed in view of various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court. Hence, Criminal Application No.5497 of 2009 is also rejected. 10. Since the applications for anticipatory bail are rejected, Criminal Application Nos.555 of 2009 in Criminal Application No.5231 of 2009 and Criminal Application No.550 of 2009 in Criminal Application No.5232 of 2009, do not survive and the same are disposed of accordingly. (V.M. KANADE, J.)