JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application has been filed by the applicant Vineet Malik alias Titu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 362 of 2005 under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. and Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act P.S. Kotwali district Mathura.
2. The protection story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sri K.C. Saxena at P.S. Kotwali on 7.9.2005 at 8.30 p.m. the allegation against the applicant is that the applicant was operating a firm in the name and style of JMD for the last 10 years by launching so many schemes, they were collecting the money from the public, consequently the firm was closed and the money collected by the public has been misappropriated. The matter was investigated and the I.O. came to the conclusion that the applicant and his associates have collected a huge amount in crores and the same has been misappropriated. Thereafter, Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act has been added by the I.O. against the applicant and Ors. co-accused.
3. Heard Sri Piyush Narain Dubey learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant I. That in the present case F.I.R. has been lodged under Section 406, 420 I.P.C., which was lodged only against the brother of the applicant namely Sanjay Malik alias Titu Malik and without any reason Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act has been added even the applicant is not 1 named in the F.I.R. and his name has been shown by the I.O. in the Gang Chart.
II. That during investigation no credible evidence has been collected by the I.O. to show the involvement of the applicant. The applicant is in jail for a long time.
It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting ;
I. That the applicant is the main accused. He was operating the firm and he was collecting the money, and applicant and other co-accused persons have cheated the public and by playing fraud he and other co-accused persons have misappropriated huge amount in crorcs. The other co-accused are still absconding. In case the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond and temper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and considering the fact that the offence has been committed by the applicant is an offence against the public at large so many persons have been cheated and their money has been misappropriated, in the present case a huge amount of money has been misappropriated, the gravity of the offence is too much, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, prayer for bail is refused.
6. Accordingly this application is rejected.