1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.20 OF 2011. Mr. Kiran Dangui, S/o. Ganpat Dangui, Age 30 years, R/o. H. No.161, Ghateshwar Nagar, Khorlim Mapuca, Bardez, Goa, presentlyl in judicial Lock Up Mapuca, Mapusa, Goa. .. Applicant Versus State (Rep. By Officer-in-charge,) Mapusa Police Station, Mapusa, Goa. .. Respondent Mr. K. Paulekar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. C. A. Ferriera, Public Prosecutor for the respondent . Coram :- A. P. Lavande, J. Reserved on : - 1 st February, 2011 Pronounced on :- 3 rd February,2011. ORDER : The applicant, who is one of the accused in Crime No.04/2011 registered at Mapusa Police Station under Sections 364(A), 365, 342, 504, 323, 506(ii), 336, 379 read with Section 34, I.P.C. seeks bail. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4th January, 2011 at about 8.40p.m. Smt. Shalu Dinkar Kambali resident of Khorlim, Mapusa, Goa lodged report at Mapusa 2 Police Station that on 3rd January, 2011 at about 5.30 p.m. at Ektanagar Housing Board, Mapusa, the accused persons namely (i) Kiran Dangui, (ii) Kalandar (iii) Paresh and (iv) Mehboob all resident of Housing Board, Mapusa kidnapped and confined Kamlesh, son of Shalu in a Sumo jeep, abused him with filthy words, assaulted him with slaps, kicks, fist blows, threatened him with dire consequences and further threatened the informant that they would kill Kamlesh if their demand of Rs.50,000/- was not met. 3. According to the informant, Kamlesh was thrown out of the moving Sumo jeep at Dangui Colony, Mapusa causing him injuries and the accused also stole Nokia mobile handset of the victim. Pursuant to the report lodged, investigation was taken out and the applicant was arrested on 4th January, 2011 and presently he is in judicial custody. It is further case of the prosecution that the other two accused namely Kalandar and Mehboob are absconding. 4. The applicant moved bail application before the Sessions Court at Panaji which has been dismissed on 17th January, 2011. The applicant has sought bail by filing the present application. 5. Mr. Paulekar, learned Counsel appearing for the 3 applicant submitted that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and his friends and the victim himself assaulted the applicant and in the scuffle, the applicant pushed Kamlesh who being in an intoxicated state fell on the ground and sustained injuries. Mr. Paulekar, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that having regard to the factual background, no offence more particularly, under Section 364-A of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant and the case of the prosecution that ransom was demanded by the applicant and others from the informants and that victim was assaulted by the applicant and his friends, is a story invented by the victim and the informant. Learned Counsel further submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and investigation carried out so far, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper. 6. Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the prosecution case is prima facie established by the investigation carried out so far and prima facie establishes the complicity of the applicant in the commission of various offences including Section 364-A of I.P.C. which is very 4 serious offence. He further submitted that two of the accused are presently absconding and investigation is at initial stage and, therefore, this is not a fit case in which the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the investigation papers, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out by the applicant for grant of bail at this stage. In my opinion, prima facie, the offences alleged, more particularly under Section 364(A) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. is made out against the accused. At this stage, it is difficult to hold that the case of the prosecution is not established even prima facie. Having regard to the seriousness of the offences alleged against the applicant and having regard to the fact that prima facie the complicity of the applicant is established in the commission of various offences in which he has been arrested, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present application. Hence, the application is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA 5