* 1 * ABA.635.2011 2 August, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2011 1. Ramesh Shrinivas Raghavan 2. Ashwin Ramesh 3. Vikramsinh Dilinpsinh Gaikwad ..... Applicants V/S. The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent * * * * Mr. M.S. Mohite, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Debajyoti Talukdas and Mr. N.T. Andam for the original complainant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 2nd August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The applicants apprehend their arrest in C.R. No. 170 of 2011 registered with Bund Garden Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with * 2 * ABA.635.2011 2 August, 2011 Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The applicants are accused nos.3, 2 and 7 respectively. The other accused persons are Rajesh Jain (accused no.1), Pankaj Chavan (accused no.4), Faheem Sayyed (accused no.5) and Richard Adhav (accused no.6). The applicants claim to be totally innocent of the allegations contained in the complaint. 2. The complainant is one Munavar Qureshi who alongwith 6 partners formed a firm by name M/s. Unofind India IT Services. The firm undertakes the work of data entry and data conversion. In his complaint, the complainant alleges that in January, 2010 accused nos. 5, 6 and 7 who are acquainted to him, introduced him to accused nos. 1, 2 and 3. These accused persons represented to the complainant that they had a project in their hands of doing data entry and data conversion worth Rs.200 crores. They claimed to be looking out for smaller firms to distribute the work of the project. All the accused impressed upon the complainant to make good of the opportunity available through accused no.1. Therefore, the * 3 * ABA.635.2011 2 August, 2011 complainant alongwith six others formed the firm of Unofind India and set up an office at the cost of Rs.52,00,000/-. When he approached accused no.1 for the work of data entry and data conversion, accused no.1 demanded a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as processing fees. Since the complainant and others had already invested substantial amount in forming a firm and establishing its office, they had no choice but to accept the demand of accused no.1. Therefore on 13th October, 2010 he handed over a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by RTGS and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to accused no.1 at the instance of accused nos.3, 5, 6 and 7. Further, at the instance of accused no.1 they handed over 4 cheques each in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to him. The work of data entry and data conversion commenced on 16th December, 2010. On that day, accused nos.1, 2 and 4 had handed over in all 60 boxes in 4 DVD forms for data entry. The firm of the complainant completed the work in less than a month and demanded its charges of Rs.18,00,000/-. Accused no.1 initially avoided to make the payment but on 10th December, 2011 * 4 * ABA.635.2011 2 August, 2011 accused nos.1 and 2 visited the complainant in his office and hand over a post-dated cheque in the sum of Rs.18,00,000/-. Some days later, both requested for return of the post-dated cheque with a promise of payment in cash. However, the payment as promised was not made. Then accused nos.2 and 3 handed over a cheque in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant which was dishonoured when presented for payment. Accused no.3 had also promised to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the partner of the complainant which promise was not kept. 3. The applicants claim that they have been falsely involved in the complaint. Applicant no.1 claims to be a retired person who after his retirement has been residing with his son. All the applicants deny any connection to the company of M/s. R.P. Virtual Vision Softcorn Pvt. Ltd owned by accused no.1. The record, however, shows that accused no.2 is one of the Directors of that company. Perusal of the complaint, shows that all the three applicants have been specifically named in the complaint with specific allegations made against them. In the * 5 * ABA.635.2011 2 August, 2011 circumstances, any claim of innocence made by the applicants cannot be accepted at its face value at this stage. 4. Mr. Mohite, the learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the facts of the case do not warrant custodial interrogation of the applicants. Therefore, they should be granted anticipatory bail. The learned APP and the counsel for the original complainant points out on the other hand that the complainant herein is not the only person who has been cheated in this manner by the applicants and the other accused, but, there are identical two more complaints filed against the accused. Investigation into the complaints of such nature is bound to be difficult unlike the investigation into the offences relating to human body. In the circumstances, grant of anticipatory bail at this stage to the applicants is likely to put obstacles in the investigation. It also cannot be said that the complaint as filed does not disclose the offence against the applicants. Infact, each applicant has been specifically named in the complaint with specific acts attributed to him. In the circumstances, I am not * 6 * ABA.635.2011 2 August, 2011 inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicants and grant anticipatory bail to them. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]