4crn5745-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5745 OF 2009 1. Mr.Shaikh Mubasheer Ahmed, 2. Mr.Ajit Ramchandran Menon, & 3. Shri Unni Warrier. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. C.K. Talekar, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs.Sona Pardasani, Advocate for the Intervenor. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 08th JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by three applicants. Applicant No.1 is working as Center Head of Chinchwad Branch Pune, applicant No.2 is working as Assistant General Manager- Operations, and applicant No.3 is working as Corporate 4crn5745-09 2 Manager - Operations in Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training. 2. The present application is preferred on 18th December, 2009 apprehending arrest of the present applicants in the matter of criminal complaint filed by one Rahul Bhatia, a student aged 21 years and who is the intervener. Said complainant filed FIR No.256 of 2009 on 14th December, 2009 against the office bearers of the Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training, branch Chinchwad, Pune for taking action against them for cheating. 3. Admittedly during pendency of the present application, protection was granted to the present applicants not to arrest the applicants. Various oral orders were passed asking for various documents from the institute and also directing the investigating agency i.e. Chinchwad police station to interrogate the office bearers and to get documentary record. 4crn5745-09 3 4. The main allegation against the office bearers of the Frankfinn Institute is that though they had taken the total course-fee of Rs.1,06,000/- from the complainant, requisite certificate as assured i.e. certificate entitling "Level 5 BTEC Higher National Certificate" was not issued and instead of that another false certificate entitling "Level 5 BTEC i Higher National Certificate" was issued. 5. Though in the aforesaid complaint it is specifically mentioned as to no job was given though there was assurance of the job to the complainant, during the arguments learned Advocate Miss.Pardasani for the intervener/complainant did not press as to not giving of job though assured. What is mainly emphasised during the arguments on behalf of the State and also on behalf of the intervener/complainant is that the certificate issued is entitling "Level 5 BTEC i Higher National Certificate" and not what is assured as "Level 5 BTEC Higher National 4crn5745-09 4 Certificate". It is significant to note that there is only difference in the title of both the certificate as insertion of the alphabet ( i ) in the certificate which was actually issued, and according to the complainant this is one of the aspects of cheating as to such type of certificate must not have been issued by the main office of Edexcel situated at U.K.. 6. During the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants brought to the notice of this Court the correspondence exchanged by Edexcel addressed to their branch at Pune i.e. Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training and also correspondence addressed to the complainant herein. Rather explanation has been offered regarding insertion of alphabet ( i ) in the title of the certificate as to it being ( i ) stand for "International". 7. On this aspect in order to substantiate the argument as to practicing cheating and preparation of fabricated documents, the learned Advocate Miss.Pardasani for the 4crn5745-09 5 intervener/complainant produced two original certificates both entitling "Level 5 BTEC i Higher National Certificate". The said certificates are respectively in the name of Rahul Bhatia and Umesh Khandare and admittedly signed by two different office bearers of Edexcel - first one is signed by one Jerry Jarvis, Managing Director, edexcel, and second is signed by one Isabel Sutcliffe, Accountable Officer, Edexcel. By pointing out the contents on the reverse of these original certificates, it is submitted that those contents are not similar and as such the practice of fraud or fabrication of documents cannot be ruled out. 8. After going through various documents which have been produced before this Court along with the application for anticipatory bail and also during the arguments today, in the opinion of this Court though prima facie there can be a matter which can be investigated and put to a logical end by the investigating agency mainly taking recourse to the 4crn5745-09 6 documentary evidence, it is not a matter in which the office bearers of the Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training are required to be put in the police custody and then to interrogate them. Suffice it to say that, as it has already been done during the interim stages of the hearing of the present application, the office bearers and any other concerned persons / employees of the said institute can be directed to appear before the investigating agency for a particular period and to give all the available documentary evidence to the police and to cooperate with the investigation. Again in the opinion of this Court the matters of such nature, as to involving the documents - whether forged or authentic, can be very well dealt with by examining the witnesses and/or documents produced by them and even enquiring with the Overseas parent institution and office bearers of edexcel. 9. Though at present the FIR is only filed by the original complainant, it is submitted that few other students are also 4crn5745-09 7 coming forward for making complaints of cheating against the said institute. If at all such is the situation, then in the appropriate crime numbers, that would be filed, the concerned police station shall take all appropriate measures according to law. So far as the present application is concerned, as mentioned above in the opinion of this Court certain conditions imposed on the office bearers applicants of Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training would substantially meet the ends of justice. In the result, present application for anticipatory bail is allowed with following order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.5745 of 2009 for anticipatory bail is allowed; [ii] In the event of arrest of the applicants - (1)Mr.Shaikh Mubasheer Ahmed, (2)Mr.Ajit Ramchandran Menon, & (3)Shri Unni Warrier in C.R. 4crn5745-09 8 No.256 of 2009 by Chinchwad police station, District - Pune, the applicants shall be released on executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only each, with one surety in the like amount each. [iii] In the event of arrest and availing of bail as above, the applicants shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday and Tuesday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon for the period of two months from availing of bail, and thereafter as and when called by the concerned investigating officer till filing of the chargesheet. [iv] Above order is passed on the condition that the applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)