1 ABA : 350/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.350 OF 2011 Rahul Shrikrishna Dharap .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Niranjan Mundargi and R.M. Sawant, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. Mr. Inderprakash Tripathi, Advocate for respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 21st July, 2011 P.C. 1. The applicant herein is one of the directors in M/s Venn Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. He has filed his application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in C.R. No.15 of 2011 of Vakola Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 406 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. His first application for identical relief has been rejected by the Sessions court by its order dated 14th March 2011. The other director in the Company is the applicant s father. They carry on business as ’ 2 ABA : 350/2011 builders and developers at Karjat, District Raigad. The complainant and other witnesses allege that the applicant and his father have taken large amounts from them with promise to sell them non-agricultural lands at Karjat. The amounts paid were by cheques as well as in cash. The applicant does not dispute the payment by cheque but disputes receipt of the amount in cash. The complainant and the witnesses have relied upon receipts executed by the applicant towards the amount in cash. Today the applicant does not dispute his signatures on the receipts, but only disputes the contents of the receipts. According to him, a person by name, Sunil Bhat has played mischief by using the papers with applicant s signatures thereon. ’ Perusal of the order dated 14th March 2011 shows that the applicant had, before the Sessions Court, disputed his signature also on the receipts. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge had compared the signatures on the original receipts with the admitted signatures of the applicant to arrive at the prima facie conclusion that the signatures appearing on the receipts is the signatures of the applicant. 2. On 22nd June 2011, the applicant had before this Court offered to 3 ABA : 350/2011 repay the entire amount due and payable by him to the complainant and other witnesses within two weeks from that day. In view of the statement made, the decision of anticipatory bail was deferred by this Court. He, however, failed to deposit the amount. Then on 7th July 2011, one more opportunity was given to him to deposit the amount along with further concession. He was permitted to deposit sum of Rs.35,00,000/- in this Court, within one week from that day and the balance amount of Rs.38,37,000/- within a week thereafter. One more date thereafter, the applicant deposited a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-. The amount of deposit was to be made by the applicant to show his bonafides as regards the disputes. Mr. Mundargi, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that the applicant is unable to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 38,37,000/-. 3. Perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant shows that, on a prima facie view, the offence alleged against the applicant is made out. Considering the facts of the case, this court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary powers of grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The application is therefore 4 ABA : 350/2011 dismissed. 4. The applicant is at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- deposited by him in this Court. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)