( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4845 OF 2010 Dnyaneshwar Devchand Patil Choudhari APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. A.B. Kale, advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.P. More, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 26th November, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. It appears from the recitals of the FIR lodged by Janabai Parshuram Patil that on 4th November, 2010, she went to bed at about 10 p.m. She had pulled the entrance door of the small hut-like house. At about mid-night, she awoke due to feeling that she was required to go out for easing. She noticed that the entrance door was wide opened. She further noticed that an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, silver ornaments, etc. were stolen away from the house. She further noticed that the ( 2 ) applicant was running away from a distance. She named him, therefore, as suspected thief and lodged the FIR. 3. The application of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court. 4. Upon hearing learned advocate for the applicant, it appears that his contentions are two-fold. First, he argued that the informant is a woman who was indulging in nefarious activities which he tried to forestall and, therefore, he has been falsely named in the FIR. Secondly, he would submit that there is no prima facie material to infer complicity of the applicant and as such, his arrest is likely to disrepute and humiliate him. It is pertinent to notice that the applicant did not seek anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court on the ground of his alleged false involvement for the reason that he had attempted to forestall certain nefarious activities of the complainant. Perusal of the grounds stated in the application (Exh-B) would show that he never alleged any activity of the complainant except vaguely stating that she is in habit of demanding money from villagers and on refusal, she threatened to lodge false complaint against them. In what manner, he attempted to forestall such activities and ( 3 ) why there was grouse in the mind of the complainant against him, is not clear from the record. It emerges from the order rendered by the Court of Sessions that four (4) neighbours of the complainant gave police statements to the effect that the applicant was found running from near the place of the incident at the relevant midnight. Unless the arrest is effected, there is no probability of recovery of the stolen articles and as such, it will have to be said that the application is destitute of merits. Hence, the application is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4845-10