1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.944 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.694 OF 2011 Kailash Ramnarayan Singh .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent And Viman Mahavirprasad Bharpilinia .Intervener Mr.Prakash Naik with Mr.Parag Shelke, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent - State Mr.Subodh Sawant, Advocate, for the Intervener CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail by a person, who is alleged to have taken Jewellery worth ` 28,50,000/- and ` 6,03,000/- from the complainant's shop on two occasions in 2 2010 on the pretext that they were required for the marriage of daughter of one Bala Nandgaonkar. The applicant did not pay for this jewellery. On enquiry with Bala Nandgaonkar, it revealed that there was no daughter of marriageable age to Bala Nandgaonkar and therefore, there was no question of any marriage in the family. The complainant had thus been cheated. Initial reports to police did not move the police machinery and eventually, only in 2011 police registered an offence. The applicant had come with the case before the Court of Sessions that he had gone to the complainant's shop and purchased jewellery worth ` 85,000/- on the condition that if his wife approved the same, payment would be made within two to three days. He stated that his wife approved jewellery and he had gone to the shop to make payment of ` 85,000/- to the complainant. He also stated that after few days one Naresh Jain contacted the applicant and 3 informed that the jewellery purchased by the applicant was very costly and started demanding money in lacs of rupees. Thus, the transaction of purchase of jewellery for applicant's wife is not distinguished from the transaction where jewellery worth lacs of rupees was possibly taken. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the receipts in question have been signed by one Suresh Kamdar and not by him and that there is nothing to show that he had ever admitted having taken such jewellery. The investigation so far does not reveal anything to show that the applicant had admitted having received such jewellery. In the application before this Court the applicant had stated that the fact of payment of ` 85,000/- in cash to the complainant is clearly admitted by the complainant in his letter in 2011 written to the police authorities. This letter annexed is at Exhibit C. It however, does not contain any such admission. Since there are specific 4 allegations about jewellery worth ` 34,53,000/- being taken by the applicant, investigation would be required to be carried out and hence, it cannot be said that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. 3. Anticipatory Bail Application stands rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)