1 Cri.Appln.No.1206/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1206/2011 Pravesh s/o Dadarao Kachgunde - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.DM Shinde, Adv. h/for Mr. NN Chitlange, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 19th April, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard finally. 2) The accused/applicant – Pravesh allegedly on 20th February, 2011 barged in the house of the complainant – Aashabai, as he felt outrage by earlier prosecution dated 4.2.2011 with his brother. Pravesh and Suresh felt that owing to the earlier prosecution dated 4th February, 2011, he faced custody and required to spend an amount of Rs.10,000/- to get bail and he threatened that such amount should be recovered, which could be by disposal of the gold ornaments possessed by the complainant – Aashabai. In the 2 Cri.Appln.No.1206/2011 brawl, that has taken place in the house of complainant – Aashabai, Suresh allegedly assaulted the complainant with a boulder, resulting her suffering injury and he controlled her. The accused- Pravesh allegedly snatched the gold ornament(Ekdani) and tried to sneak. However, Suresh was controlled by Aasabai and other villagers and he was put in rather fetters in the very room and police was called. After arrival of police, while Suresh was taken into custody, and was carrying to police station, the accused – Pravesh having noticed that his brother Suresh was taken to police station, allegedly pelted a stone towards the police jeep, resultantly, one of the police staff – Jogdand suffered contusion to his waist region. 3) The above aspects of the report of complainant – Aashabai are supported by independent witnesses – Subhash Gadade and Varsha Gadade. The contention of learned Counsel that it is unconceivable that accused/applicant shall return after snatching the gold chain, is again difficult to appreciate, as the accused/applicant knew that his brother was under the control of the complainant and villagers, in order to ensure him to release from the clutches, the applicant/accused could have reinforce his attempt. On that count, pre-arrest bail need not 3 Cri.Appln.No.1206/2011 be entertained. Considering prima facie role of the accused/applicant and the recovery of gold ornament being yet to be made, request for discretion in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. not expected. The Application lacks merit, rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/