1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1624 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1624 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1624 OF 2009 1. Mr Akil Jainuddin Akhtar, 2. Ms Arif Jainuddin Akhtar, 3. Mrs Minaz Firoz Akhtar, 4. Mrs Jabin Mohammad Husain Akhtar, Applicants. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Ganesh Sovani, for the applicants. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 17.04.2009. DATED : 17.04.2009. DATED : 17.04.2009. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-105/2009 of Panchavati Police Station, Nasik City. The said crime has been registered against the applicants for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that the present applicants and one Rihana Akhtar allegedly duped the complainant of Rs.40,000/-, which were paid by the 2 2 2 complainant to Rihana in the presence of the present applicants, for securing a job to the complainant’s son. I have perused the FIR wherein it is stated that Rihana had promised the complainant that she would secure a job for the complainant’s son and for that she had demanded Rs.1.5 lacs. Out of that amount, Rs.40,000/- were paid to Rihana on 23.2.2007, when it is alleged that all the four applicants were also present in the house of Rihana. The applicants are close relatives of Rihana. All the four applicants are residents of Ozhar and they are not residing with Rihana. However, at the relevant time they were also in the house of Rihana when the amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid to her. It is further alleged that the present applicants also assured the complainant that his work will be done by Rihana. The amount was paid in February,2007, whereas an FIR came to be lodged on 25.2.2009. Keeping that all in view and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the present applicants is not necessary. Hence, the following order. . In the event of arrest, applicant nos 1 to 4 be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each 3 3 3 with one or two sureties to make up the said amount subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, the applicants are directed to report to the concerned police station every alternate day till 5.5.2009 between 10 am and 11 am and thereafter on every alternate Saturday between 10 am and 11 am for a period of 90 days or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)