1 Cri-A-4393-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4393 OF 2010 Shri Vijay Mahendra Pratap Singh ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Abhay S.Khandeparkar, i/b. Khandeparkar & Associates,Advocates, for the applicant. Ms. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 24th November, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. 2. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.207/2010 registered under Sections 363 and 364 read with Section 34 of IPC by Samata Nagar Police Station, Kandivli (West). According to him, he is not concerned with the case and he is falsely implicated and, therefore, he seeks bail. 3. Perused the police papers. 2 Cri-A-4393-10.sxw 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Ramchandra Tiwari is in the business of purchase and sale of fish at Colaba. He has a shop at Gayatri Garden within the Thakur Campus. On 7.7.2010 at about 6 p.m., his nephew Rahul Shyam Tiwari went to the school to take back Pankaj and Sharad, two sons of Ramchandra aged about 10 and 8 years respectively from the school. When he was walking along with the two boys, one Indica Car stopped at a distance of about 100 feet from Indian Overseas Bank by the side of the footpath. 2 - 3 persons were seen in that car. As soon as Rahul and the two boys reached near the car, one of the persons in the car asked him whether he was the son of Ramchandra Tiwari. Rahul Tiwari denied. However, at about the same time, one of the persons in the car came out, caught Pankaj and forcibly pushed him in the car. Another person tried to catch hold of Sharad, but he could not succeed because Rahul ran away along with Sharad. Some people chased the car, but the car was driven away in high speed. After this incident, Rahul Tiwari informed his uncle Ramchandra and the report of the incident was lodged at about 19.55 hrs. It was revealed that one Santosh was previously in service of Ramchandra Tiwari and because he had misappropriated some money, he was removed from service and, therefore, he had threatened. The boy, namely, Pankaj was taken away towards Surat and near the godown of H.P. Gas, they stopped. After some time, those persons decided to ask the boy to go back and they took him upto Mira 3 Cri-A-4393-10.sxw Road by Safari Car and gave him amount of Rs.7/- and asked him to take a bus for Borivli Station. The boy boarded a bus meant for Borivali and he got down there at about 11 or 11.30 p.m. From there, somebody took him to the police station where he was interrogated and then his father was informed. At about midnight, his father came and he returned home along with his father. The boy was not assaulted by anybody nor any injury was caused to him. 4. From the Police papers, it appears that Rahul identified two persons, namely, Ajay Tiwari and Narendra Rahirashi, while Pankaj identified three persons, namely, Ajay Tiwari, Santosh Shukla and Narendra Rahirashi. The name of the present applicant is Vijay Mehendra Pratap Singh. He was not identified as a culprit by any witness. It is pointed out by the learned APP that Pankaj had stated before the police that one of the culprits had a talk with somebody on mobile, addressing that person as "Vijay" and told him that work was done. Therefore, the only link between the accused and the present applicant is that one of them had uttered the name as Vijay. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, even if the case under Section 364 of IPC is made out merely because his first name Vijay was uttered by one of the accused persons on mobile, it cannot be a sufficient ground 4 Cri-A-4393-10.sxw to refuse bail to the applicant. 6. Therefore, the applicant be released on his executing P.R.Bond of Rs.15,000/- with a surety in the like amount, with a condition that he shall not misuse the bail and shall not tamper the prosecution evidence. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)