1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.874 OF 2009 Matiullah Khan .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Anil Lalla i/b Lalla & Lalla for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.85 of 2008 of Sewri police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 420 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant - Jameel Chaudhary, a scrap dealer, on 17.1.2008 agreed to sale MSCS Steel at the rate of Rs.25.50 per Kg. to the applicant and the co-accused. The co-accused are father and brother of the present applicant. On 18.1.2008, the present applicant and his brother - Vasiullah Khan (co-accused) took delivery of the goods valued at Rs.31,11,960/-. The applicant and his brother thereafter issued eight 2 2 2 cheques drawn on Development Credit Bank, Mumbra Branch, District Thane. All the cheques were issued in January, 2008. On deposit of those cheques, they all were dishonoured and hence the complainant was forced to file the criminal cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is in this backdrop the complainant alleged that he has been cheated by the applicant and the co-accused for Rs.27,50,000/-. There is no dispute that the applicant and the co-accused received the goods. It is also clear that they have not paid the amount, which was due to the complainant, till this date. This simply shows that the applicant, either did not want to make the payment at all of the goods received or to delay the payment. The conduct of the applicant, in my opinion, attracts the provisions of section 420 of IPC. In my opinion, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. 3 3 3 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)