Manik S/O Piraji Jumade v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5660 OF 2014 Manik s/o. Piraji Jumade ....Applicant.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

....Respondents.

Mr. V.M. Mane, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. R.P. Phatke, APP for State.

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 7th January, 2015.

ORDER :

1.

The application is filed for relief of anticipatory bail. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the papers of investigation. The learned APP produced the copies of the orders made by this Court in Criminal Application Nos. 4831/14 and 4911/2014.

2.

Crime against present applicant is registered on the basis of report given by one Shaikh Mobin. He has made allegations that false promises were given to him by one Manik Bhamre and he was induced to make investment in one finance

company viz. K.B.C. False promise was given to return the double or three times amount, if the amount was invested in this company. Shri. Bhamre stood as guarantor. Initial amount of Rs. 86,000/- was invested and then from time to time, more amount was invested and that way, as per the scheme, the complainant was entitled to get Rs. 9,60,508/-. It is contended that relevant record like vouchers, cheques, certificates, bonds were handed over to him and promise was given to make the payment on 1.4.2014 and 11.4.2014. No payment was made on those dates and then the complainant realized that company committed fraud through this agent. Said Manik Bhamre was not available as he was absconding and he had taken long leave at the place of his service.

3.

The papers of investigation show that some record is collected from company which is to the effect that present applicant was paid a commission in respect of the amount collected by him as agent for the company. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant himself has invested more than amount of Rs. 12.5 lakh and the amount was paid in respect of said invested amount. This submission is not at all acceptable. The submissions made show that the applicant had shown his income of Rs. 5.04 lakh from this scheme in the

income tax return.

4.

This Court has refused anticipatory bail to other similar agents. The main accused, the owner of the company Shri. Bhausaheb Chavan is still absconding and he has left the country. Thousands of investors are cheated and amount of hundreds of crores is misappropriated by these persons. Thorough investigation is required and the stolen property needs to be recovered. Thus, it is not a fit case to grant relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

5.

In the result, the application stands rejected. Interim relief stands vacated.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/