{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3366 OF 2009 1. Gulabrao Ragho Bhamre Age-56 years, Occ-Agri R/o Vitai, Tq-Sakri Dist-Dhule 2. Rahul Atmaram Durdhale Age-49 years, Occ-Service R/o Ambedkar Chowk, Behind Manohar Talkies, Dhule APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Bhatu Magan Mahale Age-Major, Occ-Labour R/o Vasmar, Tq-Sakri, Dist-Dhule RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.S.Shinde h/f Mr.N.L.Chaudhari, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for the State Mr.V.M.Lomte, Advocate for respondent No.2. ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 20th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed {2} to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.23/2009 registered with Sakri police station for an offence punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 467 and 468 r/s 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, original complainant. 3. It appears that a private compliant was lodged by the second respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakri for an offence punishable u/s 420, 120-B, 467 and 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that under the pretext to provide employment in a school the applicants, who are Chairman and President, have obtained cash in the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the complainant. After parting with the amount a letter of appointment was given somewhere in the year 2000 and also in the year 2003. It is also alleged that when the complainant approached the school concerned, the Head Master refused to allow him to join on the ground that the said appointment orders were not issued by the said school. Thereafter, when the complainant demanded the amount, it was refused and later on some negotiations took place, however the amount was not returned and hence the second respondent lodged an offence, however no cognizance was taken and hence a private complaint came to be lodged and the same was referred for investigation u/s {3} 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, that due to political motive the applicants are falsely implicated in the present case, cannot be accepted. On the contrary considering the fact disclosed in the compliant and in view of the fact that the same was entertained by the JMFC, as the same was referred for investigation, so also the trend now a days going on in various schools in respect of appointment, no case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 5. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, is hereby rejected and stands disposed of. Interim protection granted to the applicants stands vacated. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3366-09