1 BA-1862-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURTE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1862 OF 2011 mhi Shri Sanjay Suresh Bhalika ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Shri Sandesh D. Patil, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the respondent-State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 20th December,2011. P.C. 1. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.33/2011 registered at Bazar Peth Police Station, Kalyan, under Sections 420, 406,468 and 471 of IPC. 2. The offence was registered on the report of Chamankumar Jha. Similar statements were also made by two other persons i.e. Pradip Naik and Sushant Behra. The applicant/accused was running business in the name and style of “Trupti Electronics”. The first informant and his friends approached the accused for purchase of Laptop and T.V. in February 2008. They paid some 2 BA-1862-11.sxw nominal amount out of the sale price to the accused and the balance amount was to be paid by City Finance Company in whose favour the first informant and his friends had executed several documents. The Laptop and T.V. were supplied by the accused to them. The report was lodged on 26.2.2011 to the effect that a few days after giving delivery of the Laptop, the applicant had asked them to return the same because City Finance Company was closed. According to them, two instalments were deducted from their account by the Bank for payment to City Finance Co. As the Laptops were taken back and as they were told that City Finance Company was closed, they instructed the Bank not to make payment of instalments from their account and accordingly the payment was stopped. In the beginning of 2011, when the staff of City Finance Co. approached them for recovery of the amount of Rs.80,000/- each with interest then they came to know that the accused/applicant had cheated them and, therefore, the FIR was lodged. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant, after taking instructions from his client, makes a statement that the amounts of the three cheques issued by City Finance Company in favour of Trupti Electronics were encashed and received by the applicant. According to him, he had also delivered the goods as per the contract. The goods were never returned to him. According to him, false complaints were made about three years after purchase. The first informant and 3 BA-1862-11.sxw his friends had failed to make payment of the instalments and therefore the recovery was commenced by the City Finance Company. From the statements of Chamankumar Jha, Pradip Naik Sushant Behra, it appears that they had received the laptops and T.V. The complaint was made three years after the transaction. There is no document to show that the said laptops and T.V. were taken back by the accused. It may be noted that anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant on 3.5.2011 when the applicant had expressed his readiness to deposit Rs.80,000/- just to show his bonafides, though according to him, he had not cheated. As he could not deposit the amount within specified period, he was taken in custody. Taking into consideration the material on record and the nature of offence, I find that bail cannot be refused to the applicant. 4. Therefore, the applicant be released on his executing P.R. of Rs.15,000/- with a surety in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)