IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 322 of 2010 Smt Rekha v. State of Maharashtra ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr U.V. Nayyar, Adv for applicant Mr S.B. Ahirkar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 5th March 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Sureshchandra v. State of Gujarat & anr delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 901 of 2008 to claim bail on health ground. According to him, applicant is a heart patient. He has further pressed into service common order of this Court in Criminal Application No. 4100 of 2007 passed on 12.12.2007 and prays that applicant being woman, she should be granted anticipatory bail. 2. Complainant Yuvraj lodged complaint on 15.10.2009 alleging that present applicant and her son promised him to provide job in Shubhan Nagrik Cooperative Society. Applicant’s son is Secretary of the said Society. Not only the complainant, but the applicant has cheated 31 similarly situated job-seekers and extracted in all an amount of Rs. 42,69,214/-. Applicant was President of the said Society. Besides this, there is allegation that applicant in collusion with her son, invested deposits of investors illegally by diverting the money for purchase of land of one Mr Shete, without seeking permission from the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and thereby committed fraud of Rs. 3 crores and above. 3. In the present case, applicant has enclosed photo copy of Out-Patient Card issued by CARE Hospital which shows that applicant was outdoor patient and had palpitation and chest pain for three days. In case of appellant before the Apex Court in Sureshchandra, he was suffering from many serious diseases and, therefore, the Apex Court had granted bail in his favour. Such is not the present case and, therefore, view taken in Sureshchandra’s case (supra) is of no avail to the applicant. Similarly, in Arvind and ors v. State (supra), this Court found that no recovery was sought against lady-applicant therein, applicant therein being woman was alone not a matter of consideration for grant of bail. In the present case, applicant is said to have indulged into fraud running in few crores. 4. Applicant in the cause-title of the applicant has shown her residential address as “K T Nagar, Near Friends Colony, Katol Road, Nagpur”. No house/apartment number, plot number, land- mark etc. has been given and a vague address is given. Moreover, in interim application (Criminal Application No. 165 of 2010), she has not stated in which crime number, registered with which police station and offences for which crime is registered, she is seeking bail and a blanket prayer for interim anticipatory bail is made. 5. Looking to the fact that accusations against the applicant are serious and for the reasons stated in paragraphs 2,3 and 4 above, custodial interrogation of the applicant would be necessary. Application is accordingly rejected. Judge. Hsj