1 Cri.appln.229 of 2011 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 229 OF 2011 IN APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2008 Mohd. Imran Islam Salamani ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves, advocate for the applicant. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED : JULY 12, 2011 P.C. 1. Original accused No. 2 has requested to release him on bail. The learned counsel submits that there is no direct evidence to rope in accused for accusation under section 364A IPC. At the most, the evidence illustrates that it could be a case of wrongful confinement, for which the accused has faced brunt. The learned counsel submits on the basis of the weak evidence, the accused has been convicted and that he is a young boy. 2. The learned A.P.P. submits that P.W. 12 watchman has implicated 2 Cri.appln.229 of 2011 the accused. He has no permanent residence. The accused had applied initially as juvenile in conflict with law, thereafter under 164 Cr.P.C. statement confessional statement was recorded and then moved an application to treat him as approver and now seeks bail. The learned A.P.P. criticises such conduct and emphasises that if the accused is released on bail, it is certain since he has no permanent abode in Mumbai or Maharashtra, he will be jumping the bail. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have perused the evidence and particularly of PW 4 Mohd Aslam Mohd Akram Saifee, elder brother of boy, P.W. 8 Ravi Pathare and PW 12 Umeshchandra Aditya Shukla. All these witnesses in unequivocal terms point at the role of the applicant. There was a phone call made to the father of the victim i.e. abducted boy. The voice was tried to be altered by the accused/applicant. He had made demand of Rs. 4 lacs. as ransom. He has knowingly detained the boy for ransom, at Haji Malang at Thane. 4. Considering the evidence on record, at this stage, further dissection of evidence is not permissible. The application lacks merit. Hence, dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)