..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2233 OF 2008 Babaji alias Babasaheb Sonuji Budhwant. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel, for the applicant. Mr.S.R.Borulkar, Public Prosecutor, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 28th July, 2008. DATED : 28th July, 2008. DATED : 28th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.291 of 2008 of Ambad police station, Nashik. The said case is under Sections 217, 218, 414, 167 of IPC. 3. One Sundarlal Shah was a courier. He used to send various items including jewellery by truck. On the relevant day the truck was proceeding to Nashik. At Nashik they found that the driver and the cleaner of the truck had ..(2).. disappeared and the jewellery had also disappeared. Hence Sundarlal came to the Ambad police station. The applicant was working as Senior PI at Ambad police station. Sundarlal Shah lodged his complaint. Thereafter he went to the police station to find out the progress of the case. After few days when he went to the police station, the present applicant got coaccused Balasaheb @ Tatya Vithal Wagh to write out an application and obtained the signatures of Sundarlal Shah on the said document. In the said document, it was stated that Sundarlal did not wish to proceed with the complaint and he wished to withdraw the complaint. 4. At this stage, it may be stated that the complaint by Sundarlal Shah was not registered. Despite the fact that the offence was not registered, the applicant with the help of coaccused conducted the investigation wherein various items of jewellery and gold ingot were recovered. Sau.Shobha Ankush Bharte has stated that before one month one Vilas Belekar (coaccused) and two persons had come to her house and had shown gold ingot to her husband and ..(3).. expressed their desire to sell it. Her husband purchased the said gold ingot for Rs.2,75,000/- which amount they had borrowed for house. On next day at noon time, Mr.Vilas Belekar accompanied by those two unknown persons who were handcuffed and police had come to her house and took away her husband. In the evening at about 5 p.m. the police again brought her husband back and at that time 200 grams gold ingot was handed over to police by her husband and then they left with her husband. After some time she received call on mobile from her husband with a message that he was sending Vilas Belekar and asked her to hand over to him her 6 gold bangles weighing 70 grams, joint ear chain, a pair of Zhube weighing 10 grams, and Ekdani weighing 10 grams. Accordingly she handed over the same to Vilas Belekar who was accompanied by one policeman. Thereafter her husband returned back and started his work as usual. Witness claims to identify that police personnel. 5. Mr.Mundargi submitted that offence under section 414 of IPC would not be made out. Reliance is placed by Mr.Mundargi on a decision in the case of NGA YAN E vs. Emperor NGA YAN E vs. Emperor NGA YAN E vs. Emperor reported in ..(4).. (s.c. U.B.R. 1910, Cr.P.C.,8) in support of his contention that no offence is made out under section 414 of IPC. However, the facts in the case relied upon and the facts in the present case being entirely different, the said decision would not be applicable to the present case. In my opinion, looking to the facts of this case, Section 414 of IPC is prima facie made out. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the custody of the applicant is necessary so as to hold TIP. However, in my view, that is not the only reason why the custody of the applicant is necessary. It is seen that though Sundarlal Shah has given intimation of cognizable offence yet the applicant who was Senior PI did not register the FIR and started investigation. Without registering the FIR, he conducted the investigation and forcibly recovered gold from various persons. This gold was then handed over to one Mr.Kirti Kumar. The facts show how goldsmiths who have purchased the gold articles involved in the crime have been forced to hand over not only the articles which were stolen property but also jewellery belonging to their ..(5).. family members. The investigation shows the modus-operandi conducted by the applicant. In my view the custody of the applicant would be necessary to find out the exact nature and extent of the racket as well as to find out who are the other persons involved in this racket. Hence,I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 7. On request of the learned Counsel for the applicant, applicant is granted time to surrender upto 11th August, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)