1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 442 of 2008 Bhagwan Pandurang Shingole & Ors. .. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.A.R. Pitale for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 5th March 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. By this application the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with the crime registered at Shahapur police station under C.R.No. I-179/07 punishable u/s.395, 341, 323, 504 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants and other four co-accused had previously made an application to the 2 Sessions Court by an order dated 12th December 2007. The learned Adhoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Kalyan granted pre-arrest bail to four accused and rejected the application on behalf of the present applicants. Hence, this application has been filed by the present two applicants in this court. 3. The prosecution case is that on 9th November 2007 while the complainant Sunil D. Kirpan was carrying a washing machine for delivery to the customer, the applicants came on a red colour motor cycle and intercepted and stopped the tempo. They dragged out the applicant and snatched money (Rs.900 to Rs.1000/- from his pocket. Then they assaulted him and made their way on the motorcycle. 4. Learned APP strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the motorcycle used for the crime is to be recovered and presence of the applicant is needed for custodial interrogation for recovery of motorcycle used in the crime. He further pointed out that applicants are presently at large and are not even present in the court. They are threatening the complainant and the witnesses. In fact on account of the threats, the complainant on one occasion, out of fear sought to withdraw the application but however subsequently gave a statement 3 that complaint was withdrawn on account of the threats. Since the applicants are persons of goonda nature and are even threatening the complainant and witnesses, they should not be granted pre-arrest bail. 5. I find merit in the submission of the learned APP. In my view, custodial interrogation of the applicants appear necessary. Also if interim bail is granted at this stage the possibility of applicants threatening the witnesses and repeating similar crime cannot be ruled out. Hence, application deserves to be rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J)