IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1299 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1299 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1299 OF 2009 Shivaji Sarang Pawar ...Applicant/ Orig.Accused No.2 vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Ms.Priyal G. Sarda for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MARCH 18, 2009 DATED : MARCH 18, 2009 DATED : MARCH 18, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard. Mentioned, not on board. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. It is firstly submitted that the Sessions Court had erred in not granting interim protection to the applicant and at the same time, directed the applicant to remain present in the court. 3. Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that if a direction is to be given by the Sessions Court to the applicant, then in that case, it is imperative for the Sessions Court to grant interim - 2 - protection to the applicant. It is submitted that if such directions are given by the Sessions court without granting interim protection to the applicant, then in that case the provisions of Section 438 would become nugatory. It was further submitted on merits that the said allegation which is made in the complaint is incorrect and false. It is submitted that the victim who was allegedly abducted by the present applicant, the applicant had never demanded any amount. It is, therefore, submitted that ingredients of offence under Section 364A are not found in the allegations which are made in the complaint. It is further submitted that there are further statements of one of the witnesses that it was happened that the matter between the two parties had been settled. Both these submissions cannot be accepted. Perusal of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. indicates that the discretion is vested in the court either to grant interim protection and thereafter, hear the main application or to reject the application for interim protection. If interim protection is not granted, it is always open for the applicant to challenge the order in the High Court. However, on - 3 - careful perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that it is not necessary for the Sessions Court to direct the applicant to remain present only after interim protection is granted. The said submission, therefore, cannot be accepted. So far as second submission is concerned, the said submission is also devoid of any merits. Perusal of the complaint indicates that serious allegations have been made against the present applicant that he had abducted the victim and had taken him to Poona and had demanded Rs.3 lakhs from him. It is immaterial whether the said amount was demanded in cash or by cheque. Taking into consideration the serious allegations which are made in the complaint, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)