[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2748 OF 2008 Phoolchand Muneshwar Yadav ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.R.V.Singh Advocate for Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 26, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 26, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 26, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.45 of 2008 of Aarey Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is mainly under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC. 3. The complainant has clearly stated that when he was introduced to the applicant, the applicant informed him that he is working as Vigilance Inspector in the Railways and can easily employ him in the Railways. However, the applicant was not [-2-] working as Vigilance Inspector but he was working as Khalasi i.e. helper in the Railways. The case of the complainant is that applicant had taken money from various persons by promising that he would get employment in the Railways. The complainant also handed over Rs.1,80,000/- to the applicant. The applicant then handed over an appointment letter to the complainant. However, on making enquiries, the complainant found the same to be forged. On search of the house of the applicant, a large number of appointment letters came to be found. Looking to the above facts, I am not inclined to grant bail at this stage. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]