ORDER : (Jyotsna Sharma, J.) 1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. These applications have been moved on behalf of the applicants-Sandeep Kumar Singh and Sarvesh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.189 of 2022, under sections-409, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Jarcha, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar. 3. As per the allegations in the F.I.R., the first informant came in contact of the office of "Divya Shakti Infra Developers Ltd.", Raoji Market, Dadri, Gautam Buddh Nagar, where co-accused Vinod Kumar told him that the head office of the company is in Ashok Nagar, New Delhi and this one is the branch in Dadra, Noida; the company has been dealing in different investment plans and that they issue certificates and receipts of the same, which on maturity provide a huge monetary benefit to the certificate holders. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that said Vinod Kumar persuaded a number of persons of the locality (whose names and the amount invested by them has been detailed in the F.I.R. itself) to invest money in their plans and were issued certificates, which are still with them. It is alleged therein that the directors of the company were Saroj Singh wife of Vinod Kumar, Sarvesh Kumar (instant applicant), Sandeep Kumar (instant applicant), Paramjeet Singh; they vacated the office two years ago and fled away after duping the public of about Rs.10 crore. 4. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they have no concern with the company; there is not a single word against them in whole of the F.I.R.; the main accused Vinod Kumar has already been granted regular bail; they have been falsely implicated in this case to cause humiliation; no evidence under sections-409, 504, 506 I.P.C. is made out against them; they have no criminal history and they shall co-operate in the investigation once they get the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that the applicants have been referred to as shareholders in the company. 5. It is also pointed out that the applicants have been referred to as shareholders in the company. 5. The applications for anticipatory bail are vehemently opposed by the other side highlighting certain facts as below:- (I) The applicants are named in the F.I.R. as being directors of the company; sufficient evidence has been collected that the company registered in their names collected an amount of over Rs.10 crore from a number of persons through its branch office opened in Dadri, Noida. (II) A number of victims have given evidence against the applicants naming them and corroborating the F.I.R. version; the applicants have not been able to show why their name have been mentioned in the F.I.R., if infact they had no concern with the same. (III) The applicants as well as other co-accused persons were not previously known to the first informant etc., therefore no question of false implication arises. (IV) The applicants cannot take defence that all the money was sent by Vinod Kumar; Infact, he was the face of the fake company and others including the applicants were working behind the scene. (V) The investigation is still going on and a thorough interrogation may be required, hence any indulgence on the part of Court shall not be very conducive for a fruitful and effective investigation. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail in both the cases. 7. Hence, both the anticipatory bail applications are rejected. 8. However, any of the observations made herein shall not be taken as a comment on merits of the case and the learned trial court shall be at liberty to form its own opinion, on the basis of material before him, at any stage of the case.