..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1026 OF 2008 Shivaji Bhagwan Salve. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.M.V.Holmagi, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th September, 2008. DATED : 11th September, 2008. DATED : 11th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.44 of 2008 of Nehru Nagar Police Station. The said case is under Sections 406, 420 of IPC. 3. The complainant has stated that he saw an advertisement in the newspaper for the post of teacher in Savitribai Phule Vidyaniketan High School, Chembur, Mumbai. Hence, the complainant preferred an application. He was called by the ..(2).. Management of the school. When he went to the School, he met the applicant who is the Chairman of the said School. The applicant informed the complainant Ravindra that if he wants the job in the said school, he should pay the applicant Rs.One lakh. The complainant paid Rs.One lakh to the applicant. Thereafter the applicant told the complainant that if he wants to be confirmed in the said post he should give the applicant further amount of Rs.One Lakh. The father of the complainant sold his land, money was collected and it was given to the applicant. However, thereafter the complainant was not confirmed and he was terminated from the job. 4. The investigation shows that in the year, 2002 Rs.50,000/- was taken from one Mahadeo Mahadeo promising him that he would be given a job. So also one Sandhya Sangle has stated that the applicant demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from her for appointing her as a teacher. She paid the said amount to the applicant. Though she was called upon by the applicant for work, when she reported her name was not shown in the muster. Thereafter ..(3).. she came to know that in the year 2006-2007 when she was appointed as teacher infact there was no vacant post of teacher in the said institution. Sandhya has stated that not only she was cheated by the applicant, but, her original papers were taken by the applicant stating that he would give her the post of teacher. Those papers were not returned by the applicant to Sandhya. Due to this, she could not appear for the interviews at other places and she could not get any other job. 5. It is seen that the case of the complainant is not an isolated instance, but, the applicant was demanding money from various persons for getting them job in his institution, When infact no vacancy was there in the institution or the jobs were not actually given to the said persons. 6. Admittedly, there are two cases pending against the applicant i.e. C.R.No.18 of 1993 of Nehru Nagar Police Station under Sections 435, 457, 380 of IPC and C.R.No.199 of 1998 of Nehru Nagar police Station under Sections 454, 114 of ..(4).. IPC. A large number of N.C. Cases have been registered against the applicant at Nehru Nagar police station i.e. [1]N.C.No.1695/1995 U/sec.504, 506 of IPC, [2]N.C.No.5520/1995 U/sec.506 of IPC, [3]N.C.No.19/1996 U/sec.506 of IPC, [4]N.C.No.534/1996 U/sec.504 of IPC, [5]N.C.No.5901/1996 U/sec.504 of IPC, [6]N.C.No.541/1997 U/sec.504 of IPC, [7]N.C.No.543/1997 U/sec.504 of IPC, [8]N.C.No.688/1997 U/sec.323, 504, 427 of IPC, [9]N.C.No.3926/1997 U/sec.323, 504, 427 of IPC & [10]N.C.No.3982/1997 U/sec.504 of IPC. 7. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had earlier preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The said application has been rejected by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge who did not have the power to entertain the application for anticipatory bail. I do not feel it necessary to enter into this controversy as I have perused the material in the present case and the material on record is sufficient to show the involvement of the applicant in the present case. ..(5).. Looking to the above facts and the antecedents of the applicant, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 8. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the applicant seeks extension of the interim protection for a period of eight weeks. Request is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)