1 CA5403,5496/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5403 OF 2011 Pandurang s/o Rajaram Jadhav Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Shri V.N.Damale, Advocate, holding for Shri V.B. Jagtap, Advocate for the applicant Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for the respondent / State Shri Abhishek Kulkarni, Adv. Assist to A.P.P. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5496 OF 2011 Jijabai wd/o Bhausaheb Ghorpade Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondent Shri Abhishek Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 14th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Criminal Application No. 5496 of 2011 is granted to enable the applicant to assist learned A.P.P. 2. So far as Criminal Application No. 5403 of 2011 2 CA5403,5496/2011 is concerned, I have heard learned Advocates of both sides. 3. F.I.R. launched by Jijabai Bhausaheb Ghorpade on 24th November, 2011, indicates that her son Anil was put in the Car by the applicant and taken away. The statement of Anil is recorded. Anil states that he was made to sit in the Car against his wishes and after few minutes he was allowed to get out of the Car and Car went away. The record as above if perused, is clear that there is no material is coming before the Court to say as to for what purpose said Anil was made to sit in the Car and taken away. Looking to the events which took place as appearing in police papers, it is clear that the offences disclosed on the basis of statements of Jijabai and Anil would be bailable and it would be difficult to accept the submission of learned A.P.P. that a case under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. One cannot presume that Anil was made to sit in the Car with purpose set out in Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 CA5403,5496/2011 4. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I hold that even if the text of the complaint and statements of witnesses including Anil are accepted as it is, they disclose offences which are bailable in nature. Hence, anticipatory bail application would not lie and the same is therefore rejected. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/14/12/11