1 Criap.No.5519 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5519 OF 2011 Moh. Adil Khan s/o Moh. Akhil Khan ..APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate holding for Mr Satej S. Jadhav for the applicant; Mr K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 23rd December, 2011 PER COURT : The present applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No. 121 of 2011, registered at Mukundwadi police station, Aurangabad, under section 395, 120 (B) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The hearing of the application got over yesterday and the matter was posted today for passing of orders. 2 Criap.No.5519 of 2011 3. The F.I.R. is filed by Mr Suresh Mancheriyal, who is the owner of the hotel by name Aishwarya, situated at Pundliknagar road, Aurangabad. The present applicant claims to be the owner of the building in which the said hotel is situated. The incident in question is of 15th June, 2011, late in the night. A perusal of the F.I.R. goes to show that the present applicant, along with four other persons, entered the hotel premises and by pointing out a Revolver to the staff, extorted a sum of Rs.78,000/- and a mobile phone also was taken. The said applicant is alleged to have taken away other valuable property from the hotel. It is also alleged that the applicant, in the course of the commission of the offence, damaged property of the hotel. 4. The charge-sheet is filed. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that there are statements of Balu, Dilip and Shivaji, who are the eye-witnesses. These persons happened to be the staff members working with the complainant. 5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the property, in which the hotel was situated, is owned by the applicant and the premises were given to the complainant on leave and license basis, which had expired. According to her, there 3 Criap.No.5519 of 2011 is no demolition taken place in respect of the premises as such. She submitted that the entire incident is blown up as the complainant feels that the present applicant is after the complainant. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that all other persons named in the F.I.R. have since been released on bail. She submitted that the present applicant be granted bail. 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the application contending that the record through the charge-sheet is directly against the present applicant. Involvement of the present applicant is made out and there is no reason for the hotel employees to make a false complaint against the present applicant. He also submitted that the record, as a whole, clearly brings out involvement of the present applicant and as such the present applicant should not be granted bail. 7. Having considered the record, I am inclined to observe that prima facie case is made out against the present applicant for a charge under section 395 read with sec. 120-B and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The statements of the hotel employees will have to be read as as they appear and on perusal thereof, the aforesaid observation has been made. 4 Criap.No.5519 of 2011 8. It may be that the building in which the hotel is situated is owned by the present applicant. However, there is no justification for the present applicant for entering the hotel premises and causing damage and removing monies from the Galla of the said hotel. 9. The time at which the incident is committed was early hours, which will also go to show that the present applicant has managed to see that there will be no eye-witnesses for the incident. The persons who have spoken against the present applicant are servants working in the hotel and there is every possibility that power, which the applicant possesses, could be used to put pressure on the witnesses. It is quite possible that for reasons set out in the said orders, the persons who had accompanied the present applicant may have been released on bail. However, in my view that cannot be considered as a ground of parity so far as the present applicant as concerned as the applicant is the person who is directly concerned with the dispute between the applicant and the complainant. In my 5 Criap.No.5519 of 2011 view, this is not a case where discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant for granting the bail. Hence, the bail application is rejected. (R. Y. GANOO, J.) amj/criap5519.11