2009aba296.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 296 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 296 OF 2011 (Vasanta Vitthalrao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Mr. N. Samundre, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM: U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 20TH SEPT., 2011 1. Heard. 2. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Shegaon police station Crime No.74/2011 registered for offence punishable under Sections 170, 171 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of the Bombay Police Act, has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. The police complaint has been filed by one Rupchand Bhuraji Tople alleging as follows :- Complainant Rupchand was introduced by the accused Arun Shelke to the accused Sharad Dhoke who gave his name wrongly as Raju Gavande. On 09/06/2011 between 2.30 pm to 4.00 p.m. Rupchand was called by said Sharad Dhoke (Raju) at Guru Gajanan Guest House with cash under pretext of selling gold to him at cheap price. The accused Sharad Dhoke and accused Vasanta Patil (present applicant) took cash of 2009aba296.11.odt 2/4 Rs. 3,15,000 from Rupchand and Vasanta (present applicant) went outside on the pretext that he would bring the tin containing gold kept with his wife. Subsequently, the present applicant showed the metal pieces in the said tin, appearing like gold and, subsequently, they accompanied the complainant to Arvi in order to ascertain purity of gold from the goldsmith. The complainant was made to sit in the vehicle which was taken to Balapur road and in the meantime Sharad stopped the car stating that he wanted to pass urine. At that time, the vehicle of white colour came from Shegaon side, from which Mohan Nichit along with some other accused persons got down. Mohan was in police uniform. The accused Sharad and Vasanta (present applicant) along with said Mohan sat in the said vehicle brought by Mohan and went away along with cash and gold like metal. 4. In the present application, the applicant has alleged that he is not involved in the present crime and merely because he is brother of Namdeo Vitthal Patil and since he had been to Shegaon police station to meet his said brother, the police are suspecting his involvement in this crime. He has further stated that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khamgaon had granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to him under the condition that he should report to Shegaon police station and accordingly the applicant had reported the said 2009aba296.11.odt 3/4 police station during which time he has already been interrogated. The applicant, therefore, states that his presence in custody is not required. 5. By way of reply, the respondent has resisted the application stating that the present applicant has been absconding and during interrogation, he made misleading statement and that accused Sunil Somkuwar has stated that remaining cash of Rs.1,15,000/- and the box containing gold is with the present applicant. The respondent, therefore, wants to recover the same from the present applicant for which custodial interrogation is stated to be necessary claiming that the present applicant also seems to be a main culprit. 6. In Criminal Application (ABA) No. 267 of 2011, while granting anticipatory bail to Mohan Nichit, this Court has observed that from the statement made by Sharad Dhoke, the remaining amount is with accused Vasanta. Said Vasanta is the present applicant. The case of the present applicant cannot be compared with that of Mohan Nichit. The contention that some other accused persons have been released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class also cannot help the present applicant because they were granted regular bail after due procedure of police custody remand, etc. 7. The learned Advocate for the applicant has relied upon the case of Vijay Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in 1997 (1) Crimes 556, wherein it has been observed by the Madhya 2009aba296.11.odt 4/4 Pradesh High Court that where main accused has been released on bail after arrest, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the present case, the applicant appears to be one of the main alleged accused from whom recovery of cash and the box containing gold is likely to be made for which custodial interrogation would be required. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, seriousness of the offence and the role attributed to him, the present applicant is not entitled for bail, at this stage. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE wwl