..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2206 OF 2008 1. Mr.Suyesh @ Bobby Devu Khedekar, 2. Mr.Mangesh Harishchandra Khedekar, & 3. Mr.Ashish Anand Sawant. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Prakash Naik, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in C.R.No.56 of 2008 of Khed police Station, Ratnagiri. The said case is under Sections 394, 420, 385, 293, 354 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant accompanied by his cousin sister had gone to distribute wedding invitation to one Vikas at about 8:30 p.m.. However, they do not find Vikas. While returning when they were near L.T.T. ..(2).. High School they saw three persons drinking liquor. One of them assaulted the complainant and asked him that why he had brought the girl with him. The complainant replied that she is his sister and they had come to give wedding invitation. However, the person informed him that they were policemen and the person in Jeans is their boss. They demanded Rs.3000/- from the complainant. They checked the clothes of the complainant and took out the money from his person. Then they took out the clothes of the complainant as well as his cousin sister and took out photographs of the complainant and his cousin sister on a mobile camera and thereafter threatened to blackmail him if he did not give Rs.3000/-. They also got executed some writing from the complainant. The statement of the complainant clearly implicates the present applicant. 4. Mr.Naik stated that the mobile phone was not with the applicant, but, it belonged to one Samir and Samir has stated that at about 9:00 p.m. one of the accused person had borrowed his mobile phone. He submitted that in such case the photographs could not have been taken by the ..(3).. complainant and his cousin sister at 8:30 p.m.. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that the complainant and his cousin sister went to the house of Vikas at about 8:30 p.m.. Thereafter they were returning back. While returning back, they saw the applicant and other accused persons and thereafter the incident occurred. In such case, it cannot be said that the incident occurred exactly at 8:30 p.m.. Moreover, Samir in his statement has also given approximate time. Looking to the above facts, it cannot be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. Thereafter the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that after mobile phone came to be seized, there is no material to show that it was sealed and hence the story of the prosecution that nude photographs of the complainant and his cousin sister were taken on the mobile phone cannot be relied upon. In my view, this is an aspect which can only be gone into at the time of trial. There is sufficient material which implicates the applicant in an offence of a serious nature. Hence I am not inclined to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. ..(4).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)