1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application No. (ABA) No. 288/2011 Prakash s/o Ramlal Pacherwal Vs. State of Maharashtra =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 21/09/2011. Heard Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. D. Kothari, learned APP for the respondent. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 178/2010 registered by Chikhli Police for offence punishable under Sections 380, 420, 342, 468, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed the present application for pre-arrest bail. The applicant has stated that a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the complainant Shri Jude Markus Murzello and in that case the applicant was main witness due to which a false case has been registered against him at the instance of said Murzello. The applicant has stated that the offence was registered against unknown person and that the applicant is innocent and has nothing to do with the forged amount etc. He has also alleged that 2 FIR has been lodged after two months from the date of incident. By way of reply, the respondent has resisted the application on the ground that the present applicant is absconding and that the investigation is not yet completed and the chargesheet is yet to be filed. It is further stated in the reply that eye witnesses namely of the two sons and two daughters of the complainant have directly implicated the present applicant and Suresh in the crime. The respondent has stated that custodial interrogation of the applicant would be required for recovering the amount and to complete the chain of investigation and to file charge-sheet. A perusal of the statements of Domnic, Gerard and Mary Jane, children of the complainant Murzello reveals that they had seen the present applicant and accused Suresh locking Domnic inside the room and breaking open the cupboard and committing theft of cash and gold ornaments, all worth Rs. 8,40,000/-. The offence was committed at the point of knife. It is the fact that co-accused has been released on bail. However, according to learned APP, he was granted regular bail and was in police custody for three days but nothing could be recovered at his instance. Considering the fact that stolen cash and stolen gold ornaments are yet to be recovered and the fact that the Investigating Officer requires custodial interrogation of the applicant for the said purpose, in 3 my view, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.