1 CRI.APP.NO.2153 OF 2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2153 OF 2009 Ramesh Shivaji Kote .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. ... Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.S.B.Wadmare, APP for the respondent. ... CORAM :A.V.NIRGUDE, J. Dated: 9th July, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.80/2009 registered at Shirdi Police Station, Dist.Ahmednagar, alleging offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 379 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The incident took place on 14th June, 2009 at about 06.00 p.m. The complainant alleged that, she, her husband and her three children had gone to Shirdi from Jalna and at about 06.00 p.m. on 2 CRI.APP.NO.2153 OF 2009. that day, her husband was trying to park their vehicle in front of the applicant's shop. The applicant and his servants came up to the Car and asked her husband who was driving the Car, not to park the Car there. On this count, there occurred quarrel between the complainant's husband and the applicant and others. Quarrel soon turned violent and a fight erupted. It is alleged that the applicant and his companions assaulted the complainant and her husband. In the melee, the complainant removed her gold Mangalsutra from her neck and while she was about to give it to her daughter, aged 17 years, the other accused, the servants of the applicant, kicked the complainant in abdomen and the applicant and three others, then snatched away the gold Mangalsutra from the hands of the complainant. 3. The husband of the complainant supported this narration in his statement. There is one more eye witness to support this narration. But I think, there is gross exaggeration in the allegations. At 06.00 p.m. in the month of June, there is sufficient day light and if this incident, which was a petty quarrel over parking space etc. turned violent, it would not culminate into theft. Assuming the theft of the ornament took place, it would be only one of the assailants who would lunge forward to grab the ornament. This could have then been reflected in the complaint. 3 CRI.APP.NO.2153 OF 2009. The allegation that four persons jointly committed theft is not convincing & believable. Assuming that this incident occurred and one of the four accused grabbed and snatched away the gold ornament, there has to be consequence of such act namely such accused would certainly try to flee away from the scene of occurrence. In that case, there has to be an attempt of chase of such person by not only the complainant but her husband and other by standers. The complainant and the other eye witnesses do not say that any one of the accused after snatching away the gold ornament started running away and that he was chased by any one of the witness etc. In absence of such details in the narration, I am of the view that the complaint is exaggerated. To teach a lesson to the applicants and others, the element of theft is introduced in this case. There is possibility that in the melee, the gold ornament got lost. The applicant, in my view deserves anticipatory bail. The application is allowed. (i) The applicant, in the event of his arrest in this case, shall be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only), with one surety in the like amount. ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) lkp 4 CRI.APP.NO.2153 OF 2009.