1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1333 OF 2009 Bharamappa s/o Shetteappa Khandekar Age : 55 years, Occu.: Service, As a General Manager (Cane) R/o Nirani Sugar Factory, Tq. Modul, Dist. Bagalkot Karnataka .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Kaij, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed (Copy to be served on AGP. of High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Applicant Smt. R.R. Mane, APP for the Respondent­State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22ND JUNE, 2009 ORAL ORDER:­ 1] The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in crime M.A. no. 1 of 2009. The complainant made a complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class on 26.12.2008 that on 16.12.2008, the applicant and other 8 persons abducted his brother 2 Vitthal alongwith the complainant's vehicle, a truck bearing no. MWKS­0323. The complainant firmly asserted in the complaint, that he saw the applicant and other 8 persons, while he was having a cup of tea in a road­side restaurant and his brother Vitthal was cleaning the interiors of the truck at the time of the incident. 2] It is the case of the complainant that immediately after the incident, he approached the concerned Police but they refused to take cognizance and so he approached the Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, asked the Police to investigate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant also made an application under section 94 Cr.P.C. and sought search warrant. The complainant alleged that his brother Vitthal and the vehicle in question were taken to the applicant's sugar factory situated at Mudhol, Dist. Bagalkot, Karnataka. The learned Magistrate issued search warrant but initially, despite this warrant, the Police could not enter the factory. 3 3] It is the case of the complainant that after the abduction of his brother, he made a phone call to the present applicant who happens to be the General Manager of the sugar factory and asked him to release his brother and the vehicle. He stated despite his request, the applicant demanded Rs.2 Lakh from him as condition precedent for release of his vehicle and his brother. Despite of search warrant and the complaint lodged, the abducted person as well as the vehicle did not come back. So the complainant lodged a petition for habeaus corpus. 4] The Division Bench of this Court directed the Police to keep searching the victim. Thereafter, the present application for anticipatory bail came to be filed and a detail report was called. The detail report is now before me and it clearly indicates that the complainant's complaint could be false. The Investigation Officer stated that the eye witnesses of the incident of abduction did not support the complainant’s case and their 4 statements are recorded accordingly. He further reported that some witnesses stated to him that after the incident of abduction the abducted person Vitthal was seen in his village. The investigation officer thus opined that the complaint was lodged in order to avoid payment of Rs.2 Lakh to the factory manager. In view of this report, there appears a clear case that the applicant would not be arrested in this case. 5] The applicant therefore, deserves protection of anticipatory bail. The applicant, if arrested in this case, shall be released on bail of Rs.10,000/­ (Rs. Ten Thousand) with one surety in the like amount. 6] Application stands disposed of. Sd/­ (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/22june9/cr1333.09