..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2302 OF 2008 Gopal Alias Gopi Prabhu Naik. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.C.K.Pendse, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 18th July, 2008. DATED : 18th July, 2008. DATED : 18th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.89 of 2008 of Shivaji Park Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 397 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. The complainant has stated that the applicant and coaccused Babalu Thakur obstructed him and asked him to pay hapta for four days. The complainant stated that since 4-5 days as there was raid by the municipality he could not pay the amount. The coaccused then took out a countrymade firearm, pointed out to the head of the ..(2).. complainant and threatened him and took out the money from the pocket of the complainant. Thereafter, Babalu and the present applicant went away giving abuses to the complainant. The material on record clearly shows that the applicant shared common intention with the accused Babalu. The learned APP pointed out that there are two other cases in which the applicant is involved i.e. C.R.No.287 of 2006 of Shivaji Park police station and C.R.No.53 of 2002 of Mumbai Central Police station (Railway). Both the said cases are under Section 324 r/w. 34 of IPC. The material on record shows that the applicant is habitually indulging in extortion. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)