Sanjay Dnyaneshwar Chanpurkar v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Frezarpura P.S. Amravati

1 aba48.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.48 OF 2016 (Sanjay Dnyaneshwar Chanpurkar ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Frezarpura, Amravati) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 11-02-2016 Heard Shri A.A. Naik, learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant.

2.

The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the very nature of the allegations against the applicant cannot be accepted as it being the established policy that the amount of premium has to be deposited either by cheque or demand draft, it is unbelievable that the investors/policy holders would give cash amount to the applicant to deposit with the bank. It is further submitted that the applicant is granted ad-interim protection by the order dated 27-01-2016 and he has not misused the liberty granted by this Court. It is further submitted that the non-applicant has failed to show that the custody of the applicant is required for interrogation.

3.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

2 aba48.16 submitted that the complaint is made by the Senior Sales Manager of State Bank of India, Life Insurance Corporation Limited for the activities of the applicant and during investigation, in addition to the 17 policy holders regarding whom the complaint was made by the Senior Sales Manager, 8 more policy holders have approached the Investigating Officer with the same grievance.

4.

Considering the nature of offence and allegations made against the applicant, in my view, this is not a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant. 5.

The application is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE pma