1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4020 OF 2007 Smt.Mina S. Pawar .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.Raj J. Khude for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 14th January 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the FIR dated 4th June 2007. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the offence registered at Vithalwadi police station, District Thane under C.R. No.I-59/2007 for the alleged offences punishable u/s.420 r/w sec.34 of the 2 IPC. 3. The applicant is in custody since 17th August 2007. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. Perusal of the FIR dated 4th June 2007 discloses that the complainant Ms.Pravin Rajendrakumar Bali alleged that the company named as "Eniac Job Works and Investment Pvt.Ltd" (for short ’the company’) issued an advertisement in the newspapers in pursuance of which it offered to give certain work to the persons who were willing to work for the company. When the complainant approached the company, three persons viz. Jaspalsingh Gadree, Swaraj Jaspal Gadri and Jayprakash Gupta were present in the office and they asked for a deposit of Rs.47,000/- for giving of the job. The complainant paid the deposit which was not repaid and she was also not paid the money for the work done by the applicant. The complainant, therefore filed an F.I.R. alleging offence under section 420 of the IPC. 4. The applicant was not present when the meeting took place with the complainant. No role is ascribed to the applicant in the FIR. The applicant is only one of the employees of the company and at the relevant time was working at different place. 3 The prosecution has not alleged that the money was deposited with the applicant or was received by the applicant. The applicant is a girl aged 25 years and appears to be an employee of the company and no direct role of cheating has been attributed to her by the complainant. In my view, she is entitled to a conditional bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R 5. The applicant be released on bail on her executing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each subject to the condition that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor make any inducement or threats to the prosecution witnesses. (D.G. KARNIK, J)