1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4052/2011 Ganesh s/o Madhavrao Hande Applicant/accused V E R S U S The State of Maharahstra and others. Respondents Mr. G.G.Suryawanshi Advocate for applicant. Mrs.R.K.Ladda APP for respondent/s .... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3982/2011 Sainath s/o Balaji Kawtikar Applicant/accused V E R S U S The State of Maharahstra Respondent Mr. M.P.Tripathi Advocate for applicant. Mrs.R.K.Ladda APP for respondent/s CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Perused investigation papers, which were made available for the inspection purpose, as well as heard learned 2 respective counsel for the parties, finally. 2. These are the two criminal applications preferred by the respective applicants therein, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under Crime No.74/2011, registered with Mukhed Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Ramchandra Balasaheb Patil on 4.5.2011, against the aforesaid applicants. It is alleged in the said complaint that the applicants in the aforesaid both the applications approached the complainant in the year August, 2010 as a representative of “Adwing Commercial Management Private Limited” and gave a proposal to him that, Tower of Aircel Mobile company would be installed in his field and requested him to make available land under his field therefor and represented him that an amount of Rs.15,000/- rent would be paid to him per month in that respect, and, also put the condition upon him that land admeasuring 4 gunthas out of his field was to be let out to the said company for the period of twenty years. 3 Accordingly, after negotiations, said deal was finalized. 4. It is also alleged that the applicant namely Ganesh Hande in Criminal application No.4052/2011 represented the complainant for the aforesaid work and the complainant would be required to incur the expenses. Accordingly, he took the amount from the complainant towards expenditure such as Rs.7,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.30,850/- totaling to Rs.47,850/-. The complainant was also assured that agreement would be executed between the complainant and said company and applicant Ganesh also gave a sanction letter to the complainant in respect of the installation of the said tower. 5. As regards the applicant Sainath Kawtikar in criminal application No.3982/2011, it is alleged in the said complaint that, when the complainant went to the office of the said company at I.T.I. corner, Nanded at that time, said applicant Sainath as well as applicant Ganesh in other application were present in the office and they gave a sanction letter in respect of installation of tower 4 and asked Rs.30,850/- from the complainant and assured that agreement would be executed shortly and accordingly, an amount of Rs.30,850/- was taken by the said applicant in Criminal application No.3982/2011. 6. However, it is alleged in the said complaint that on 19.4.2011, it was revealed to complainant that said company is a bogus company and same was floated on false and forged documents. Hence, the complainant searched for both the applicants herein above, but, they were not found. Hence, the complainant approached the police station and filed the complaint. 7. On the aforesaid background, learned respective counsel for the applicants submitted that they themselves were the victims of the fraud committed by the aforesaid company and they had submitted one application to Superintendent of Police, Nanded on 11.4.2011 i.e. prior to filing of the aforesaid complaint but no action has been taken by the Superintendent of Police in that respect so far. It is also canvassed by the learned counsel for 5 the applicants that some amounts were received by the applicants from the complainant, out of which some amounts were deposited by them in the account of the company and Demand drafts of remaining amounts were sent to the company. Hence, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no intention to cheat the complainant on the part of the applicants, and therefore, they are entitled for the anticipatory bail. 8. Learned APP countered the said argument and opposed present application vehemently and submitted that, names of the applicants have been reflected in the First Information Report and overt act/specific roles have been attributed to them therein in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the applicants herein represented the above referred company i.e. ‘Adwing Commercial Management Private Limited’ and gave false promise to the complainant and extracted huge amounts from him and subsequently, it was revealed that said company is bogus which was floated on the basis of forged and false documents. Hence, it is submitted that matter is required to 6 be investigated thoroughly and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants are necessary and hence, submitted that present application be dismissed. 9. Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the very contents of the complaint lodged by the complainant, it is apparent that names of the aforesaid both the applicants have been reflected therein and overt act/ specific roles have been attributed to them in the alleged offence. Moreover, it also appears that the applicants herein represented the above referred company namely Adwing Commercial Pvt.Ltd., as their representatives to the complainant, and apparently gave false promise to him and on their representation, complainant departed huge amount which was accepted by the applicants herein on behalf of the aforesaid company, which has not been recovered so far. Moreover, subsequently, it was revealed that said company is bogus which was floated on bogus and forged documents. Hence, possibility of cheating the complainant by the applicants apparently cannot be ruled out. 7 Moreover, the aforesaid alleged fraud is required to be unearth thoroughly and hence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is imperative for further progress in the investigation and therefore, aforesaid both the applications deserve to be rejected. 5. In the result, present applications No.4052/2011 and 3982/2011 lacks merits and therefore, dismissed. 6. The observations are the primafacie in nature, same may not be used in any other matter, being decided on merits. Present application stands disposed of finally (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE ... aaa/