1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No. 314/2011 Balkrishna Ramdhyan Agrawal vs.. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. M.I.D.C. Nagpur Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A. M. Rizwy, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 19.10.2011. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 116/2011 registered at Police Station M.I.D.C., Nagpur for offence punishable under Sections 363, 365 and 170 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed the present application for bail. 3. Sau. Indu Kshirsagar has lodged the complaint on 20/08/2011 against five unknown persons, including the driver of the Sumo Jeep of white colour and in this complaint there is reference to the present applicant. 2 4. The case of the prosecution is as follows : The daughter of the complainant namely Manisha Kshirsagar got married to Kanhaiya Bawankar who was working with the applicant. The applicant then gave to them place to reside in his house and also gave employment to both of them in his shop. However, the applicant had bad intention about keeping illicit relationship with Manisha which Manisha and Kanhaiya came to know and they both ran away. The applicant lodged complaint against both and the police arrested Manisha and Kanhaiya. The complainant Indu got them released on bail. Thereafter, Manisha and her husband Kanhaiya were in residing her house at Ekatmata, Nagpur Jayatala. At about 7.30 p.m., on 20/8/2011, five persons came in a white sumo jeep in front of her house and they were asking “where is Lahu”? The said persons impersonated themselves to be police persons and said that they wanted to record the statements of Manisha and Kanhaiya at the police station. By saying so, they caught Kanhaiya and Manisha and kidnapped them by putting them in the white sumo jeep. While the jeep was going towards Shivangaon road, one of the accused persons talked to the applicant, on the mobile of the applicant, by saying “Agrawalji, your work has been done as per your say”. After about half an hour, the said jeep got punctured and after repairing the said puncture, journey continued and they stopped for breakfast and they also asked Manisha and Kanhaiya to have 3 breakfast, and at that time, Manisha and Kanhaiya questioned the said persons as to why they were doing such illegal act. Upon this, Manisha and Kanhaiya were left on the road and the said five persons went away. 5. In the present case, the statement of said Manisha Bawankar and Kanhaiya Bawankar have been recorded and they have corroborated each other in respect of the said prosecution case. Upon going through the case papers, I find that there is prima facie evidence against the present applicant to show that he is the prime accused, who instigated the said five persons to kidnap Manisha and Kanhaiya as there were strained relations between the applicant and Kanhaiya and he wanted to take revenge. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Rizwy has argued that the applicant is innocent and that he had lodged the complaint on 09/08/2011 against Manisha and her husband Kanhaiya who were working as Manager in his Chidambara resort at Rajnandgaon- Raipur, Nagpur and that they have misappropriated an amount of about Rupees 1 to 1.5 lakhs. According to learned Advocate Mr. Rizwy, the complainannt has lodged false complaint against him because of the said complaint lodged by the applicant, upon which FIR No. 91/2011 has been registered against Manisha and Kanhaiya. 4 7. Considering the complications that are involved in the present case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant would be essential for seizure of the sumo vehicle, mobile of the applicant and to successfully carry out the investigation. Out of enmity and frustration, the applicant may repeat similar incident or may tamper with the witnesses. In the circumstances above, in my view there is no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. The learned Advocate Mr. Rizwy then submitted that the applicant would surrender before the competent authority and brought to the notice of this Court that the applicant was granted ad-interim anticipatory bail. He, therefore, prayed that the said interim protection granted to him be allowed to continue till 31/10/2011 so as to enable him to surrender before the competent authority. 9. In view of above, the application is dismissed but, in the interest of justice, the interim protection granted by this Court dated 13/09/2011 shall continue till 31/10/2011. JUDGE Punde.