RAKSHA RAJESH KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has moved the present application under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail as the applicant is apprehending her arrest in Cr No.73/09 at the hands of Sr. Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 of IPC. According to learned counsel for the applicant the husband of the applicant had registered a partnership firm sometime in February, 2004 under the name and style of M/s.Raksha Entertainment System. The said partnership firm was carrying out business in the field of entertainment. The husband of the applicant floated a scheme where under interested parties were to deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- for being admitted as a member under the said scheme and the partnership firm was to arrange various programmes which could be attended by the member in the company of three other persons free of costs. It was also represented by the husband of the applicant that each member would be receiving Rs.1000/- per month for a period of 12 months after he becomes a member. Under the said scheme certain additional incentives were also provided for to those members who would enroll additional members. The said scheme failed and the depositors were neither paid the amount as promised nor could they be extended the benefits assured to them. The present complainant is one of such persons who had deposited Rs.2000/- and has received sum of Rs. 1000/-. However he has not been paid the regular returns as assured.

(2.) LEARNED APP appearing for the State submits that the total amount involved is Rs.1.10 crores. According to the learned counsel for the applicant the present applicant and the other partner had executed power of attorney in favour of the husband of the present applicant and the applicant's husband alone was looking after the affairs of the partnership firm. The applicant is stated to be housewife and has never taken active participation in the administration and affairs of the partnership firm. Hence the applicant cannot be fastened with any criminal liability. It is undisputed that the main accused is the husband of the present applicant and he has been arrested and is presently in custody of the respondent. In all fairness learned APP submits that from the record it is revealed that the applicant has not taken any active part in the business of the firm. However cheques were received in the name of present applicant and money was deposited in the account of the firm. Some of the cheques are signed by the present applicant as she was operating the account of the firm. Having regard to the fact that the husband of the present applicant is already in custody and further having regard to the fact that the applicant is not prima facie shown to be involved in active conduct of business of the firm I deem it appropriate to grant interim relief in favour of the applicant. The applicant has a minor child aged about 10/12 years to look after. It is stated that there is no one else to look after the said child. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances I think this is a fit case for grant of bail. In the result I pass the following order: