1 CR.APL NO.77/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.77 of 2011 Omprakash Yadavrao Shekhapure, Aged 46 years, Occ: Govt.service, r/o Tilaknagar, Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Sillod Police Station, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. The District Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Adv., h/f Mr. Sunil B.Jadhav, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:18/1/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. In Crime No.I-106/2010, registered at Sillod Police Station, for an offense under Sections 420, 406 of IPC, pre- 2 CR.APL NO.77/2011 arrest bail is sought. 2. The complainant Ashok, an Advocate by profession, was approached by accused/applicant on 29.5.2010, informing him of a Scheme to get the investment multiplied at a higher speed and acceleration. Believing in the statement and representation of the accused/applicant, said complainant handed over Rs.1,00,000/- to him, to be invested in the Scheme propagated by the accused/applicant. This is supported by witnesses. 3. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicant submits, indeed, it is the accused/applicant who is victim of circumstances. In order to stress his point, he has placed reliance to a report lodged to Police dt.23rd Oct.,2010, and a subsequent report dt.21.11.2010. In both the applications the applicant conveyed, he has been duped in the process of investment by the inducement from bigwigs of Aurangabad for investing in Raynolds Fund Management Company (hereinafter referred as Raynolds). There is a certificate in favour of accused/applicant issued by the said Company on 6th Dec.,2009. 4. Counsel submits, based on the investment made by the complainant, indeed, there is such certificate issued by the said Raynolds in 3 CR.APL NO.77/2011 favour of the said complainant Ashok dt.15th Oct.,2010, informing, depositing of 2000 ePoints corresponding to the investment of Rs.1,00,000/- and it was placed on the status of a premier investor Pralhad Vishal Kantaprasad. 5. On evaluating documents, prima facie, it was the dishonest intention running in the mind of the accused/applicant by which he induced the complainant to deliver Rs.1,00,000/- to be invested in a scheme floated by his mentor. He did not advert to any risk in the affairs. Parting of the said money by the complainant was solely at the representation and inducement made by the accused/applicant. 6. Custodial interrogation would reveal the colleagues and associates in the net of cheating and duping several others. Even if accused/applicant has made representations dt. 23.10.2010 and 21.11.2010, that will not mitigate his primary responsibility which he has showered upon him by harassed and hapless complainant. 7. Application lacks merit, dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/77-11crapl