1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No.241/2011 ( Sanjay S/o Ramchandra Pathak ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. City Kotwali, Akola ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Bhattad, Adv. for applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent/State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 25.7.2011. 1. The applicant has filed this application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.41/2011, registered at the police station City Kotwali, Akola, for the offence punishable under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 8/6/2011, one Gautam, attached to Sahayata Micro Finance Company, Akola Branch, lodged the complaint with the police station City Kotwali, Akola that the applicant was demanding Rs.25,000/- from him. The trap was laid by the police. One Wasimoddin and Abdul Hafiz, who were sent by the applicant, were apprehended while accepting the amount of Rs.20,000/-. It is the prosecution case that, the applicant had threatened the complainant that his company would be defamed if the ransom of Rs.20,000/- is not paid. Earlier, the complainant had lodged report against the applicant for which the complainant was called in the police station. 3. The trap was successful. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was seized from 2 Wasimoddin and Abdul Hafiz, who had come to collect the amount. The investigation revealed that the applicant had sent them for collecting the amount. Investigation further revealed that the applicant was in constant touch with these two persons on their mobile. 4. It is the case of the applicant that he is the President of All India Consumer Protection Organization (Vidarbha Region). The complainant, in the name of Micro Finance Company, is collecting Rs.1500/- from the gullible persons and luring them to deposit their hard earned money with him. Against this fake company, the applicant lodged the report. This is the reason why this false case has been foisted against him. 5. Reply filed by learned A.P.P. is perused. After receiving the extortion calls i.e. demand of the amount from the applicant, the complainant lodged the report. The trap was laid. The persons, allegedly sent by the applicant, were caught raid handed while accepting Rs.20,000/-. The investigation revealed that the applicant was in touch with Wasimoddin and Abdul Hafiz during the relevant period. The investigation further revealed that similar type of demand was made by the applicant from few others. 6. Prima facie, involvement of the applicant in the offence punishable under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Considering the nature of the offence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is imperative. Thus learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the application. 7. Application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.