1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2593 OF 2010 Indrabahadur Ramjit Jaiswal ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ......... Mr.S.B.Patil, for applicant. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP for respondent State. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 28th MAY, 2010. P.C. : This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with FIR No.I-34 of 2010 which registered for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 2] Heard Mr.S.B.Patil, learned counsel for applicant and Mr.Hingorani, learned APP for respondent State. 3] The statement of the complainant was recorded on 15 th April, 2010. Mr.Patil, learned counsel submitted that the alleged incident involving the applicant took place on 17 th May, 2009 and the complaint was filed as late as on 15 th February, 2010. It was further submitted that the basic grievance made by the complainant is against one Mr.Bharat Chavan for neither refunding the amount nor completing the construction work. He submitted that no offence is 2593-10.sxw 2 disclosed against the applicant. 4] As against this, the learned APP for respondent State submitted that the investigation is in progress and the offence is of misappropriation. Taking into consideration the nature of offence this is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Prima facie, perusal of the statement of complainant dated 15 th February, 2010 discloses that he had given some money to one Bharat Chavan for carrying out construction of his residential house and the remaining amount was to be given after the completion of work. The complainant went to his native place at Uttar Pradesh and in the meantime the son of complainant informed to the complainant on telephone that the present applicant along with Bharat Chavan and others had demolished the entire construction as also removed the roof and other articles from the construction site. It is alleged that thereafter Bharat Chavan again assured the complainant that he will complete the construction work on payment of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly, agreement was entered into between the complainant and said Chavan on 17 th November, 2009 and the complainant paid him Rs. 5,000/- on that day. Since said Bharat Chavan neither completed the construction work nor refunded the amount, the complaint was lodged on 15 th February, 2010. 6] Perusal of statement of the complainant, prima facie, indicates that basically the grievance of the complainant is against said Bharat Chavan. Assuming that the incident took place on 17 th May, 2009, as claimed by the complainant, it is not believable that he will enter into further agreement with said Bharat Chavan and agree to pay the amount on 17 th November, 2009. Apart from this, the incident took place on 17 th May, 2009 and the complaint is lodged on 15 th February, 2010. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the 2593-10.sxw 3 applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- (a) Applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.I-34 of 2010 registered with Ambernath Police Station, on furnishing bail of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. (b) The applicant shall report to Ambernath Police Station once in a week on every Friday between 5.00 pm. and 7.00 pm. till the filing of charge sheet and afterwards as and when called by the concerned Police Officer in writing. (c) Applicant shall neither tamper with the prosecution evidence nor threaten the witness. (d) Criminal Application is disposed of. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] 2593-10.sxw