... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4513 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.4513 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.4513 OF 2005 Shri.Vishwanath Ramchandra Dange ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Shri. A.P. Mundargi with Shri. Amit Sale for the Applicant. Shri. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 18, 2005. : JULY 18, 2005. : JULY 18, 2005. P.C.: 1. Heard Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. This is an Application for Anticipatory Bail by the Applicant. The offence has been registered against the Applicant under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the newspaper reports indicate that the woman concerned, by name Soniya has migrated to Canada and newspaper reports show that the statement of the mother of said woman to that effect has been recorded. He submitted that the complainant himself has criminal antecedents and offence of extortion has been registered against the complainant. He submitted that from plain reading of the allegations made by the complainant it is obvious that the Applicant is sought to be arrested only for the purposes of harassing him though there is absolutely no material against him. ... 2 ... 3. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the investigation is in progress and there is enough material collected by the Investigating Agency showing complicity of the Applicant. He has relied upon certain information collected by the Investigating Agency from a cell phone company and certain statements of the witnesses. 4. I have considered the submissions. I am not referring in detail to the material produced as investigation is still in progress. Suffice it to say that there is some material to connect the Applicant with the offence. In this case, allegations against the Applicant are of very serious nature and considering the allegations and material collected by the prosecution, it cannot be said that custodial interrogation of the Applicant will not be required. There is no merit in the Application and same is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE