*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3982/2009 Hemant Bhivajirao Desai. ..Applicant -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent ............... Mr.Rajendra Shirodkar and Mr.Archit Sakhalkar, Advocates for the Applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P., for the Respondent/State. Mr.Aabad H.H. Ponda, Advocate for the intervener. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 02nd September, 2009. PC:- 1 This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Applicant in connection with Crime No.308/2009 registered at Matunga Police Station under Sections 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 The present Applicant was member of the Bombay Building & Re-construction Board which is an undertaking of MHADA. According to the prosecution, the Applicant being an influential person connected with the said Board has assured the Complainant that he would secure for the Complainant a room and a shop premises in the building which was to be constructed at Khed Galli, Dadar by MHADA. According to the prosecution, the Applicant *2* had demanded a sum of Rs.5 Lac for a room and Rs.15 Lac for a Gala/shop premises. According to the F.I.R., during the period from 2003 to 2005 the Complainant did pay a sum of Rs.18 Lac to the present Applicant. While settling the deal the father-in-law of the Complainant by name Ravji Vawia is also stated to have misinterpreted the Complainant. It is clearly ascertained in the F.I.R. that from time to time the amounts were paid by the Complainant to the present Applicant as it was represented to the Complainant that the present Applicant would secure the said two premises at a sum of Rs.20 Lac for the Complainant. The amounts are said to have been paid in presence of the said Ravji Vawia. The Police have recorded the statement of Ravji Vawia who confirms the fact of payment of amounts in his presence. 3 According to the learned APP, the Applicant has not co- operated in the investigation and is absconding. 4 The Applicant had initially moved before the Sessions Judge, however, as the Sessions Judge was of the view that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary, his application was rejected. 5 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not feel that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The Application is rejected. (A.P. Deshpande, J)