SRJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3330 OF 2010 Shri Mayur A. Sanas .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri R.V.Katore, for Applicant. Shri K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : AUGUST 17th, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for regular bail preferred by the Applicant during the pendency of the matter of C.R.No.61 of 2010 for the offences punishable under sections 384 and 386 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Bundgarden Police Station, Pune. 2 The allegations against the Applicant are that he gave threats over telephone and demanded ransom money of Rs.10 lacs from the Complainant. Said telephone calls were made to the Complainant since 1 st February, 2010. SRJ 2 They were continued till 2 nd February, 2010. Complainant did not give much heed and almost for one and half day, he did not take the phone calls and cut the telephone. During conversation after knowing that the caller has asked for ransom money or otherwise with threats to kidnap children of the Complainant, the Complainant intimated the police and trap was laid on 3 rd February, 2010. Arrangement was made by having the conversation with the said unknown caller to come out at particular place to take the ransom amount. Prior to that, it was agreed between the said caller and the Complainant that the ransom amount is to be paid to the tune of Rs.2 to 3 lakh in stead of Rs.10 lakh. As per the arrangement, the unknown caller appeared in scene on the motorcycle. When the caller has accepted the bag containing the amount, he was accosted by the Police and said person is then identified to be the present Applicant before the Court. Usual procedure for the such trap was conducted. Present Applicant was put under arrest and necessary remand was obtained. 3 During the arguments learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that there is rather discrepancy in the timing as to when the panchanama was started by the police and when the present Applicant allegedly arrived on the spot and was arrested. It is pointed out to the SRJ 3 Court that the panchanama was started at 1.00 p.m. and concluded at 2.45 p.m. However, according to the investigation, present Applicant arrived on the spot at about 1.55 p.m. This is in the opinion of the Applicant, is the variance. This argument cannot be accepted, considering the procedure of the trap conducted by the police. When the panchas are called, they are appraised as to the job for which they are brought and then the police machinery starts taking action. There is nothing abnormal so far as starting of panchanama at 1.00 p.m. and arrival of the Applicant on the spot at 1.55 p.m. as suggested by the Applicant and it cannot lead this Court to accept the fabrication. 4 It is argued on behalf of the Applicant that there are certain money transactions between father of the Applicant and the present Complainant who is builder. According to the Applicant, he is estate agent and his father had some dealing with the Complainant as to sale of certain immovable property belonging to his father. By pointing out this, it is submitted that it was not necessary for the Applicant to ask for the ransom amount of Rs.10 lakh or any amount as his father also received compensation for the property which is sold to the Complainant. Considering the factual position, averments made in the First Information Report as to findings of SRJ 4 the present Applicant on the spot and his arrival there for taking the said ransom amount, in any event it is not the case in which the present Applicant can be released on bail during pendency of trial. More so, the investigation is also over and charge sheet is also filed and even charge is framed, about 25 days earlier. More so, the release of the Applicant on bail may hamper the smooth trial of the case, considering the conduct of the Applicant and considering the threat earlier given to the Complainant to take away the children, if the ransom amount of Rs.10 lacs is not paid. Hence, order:- (a) Criminal Application No.3330 of 2010 rejected and accordingly disposed off. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)