1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5538 OF 2009 Sangram Pratapsinha Patil : Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra : Respondent. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale for the Applicant Mrs. M R Tidake, APP, for the State. CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 10th December 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 364­A, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint has been lodged against the present applicant in which it is alleged that the Applicant had met the complainant earlier before the date of the incident and had introduced himself and told him that he would find a customer for the purpose of purchasing the land owned by the complainant. It is also alleged that thereafter the applicant was in constant touch with the complainant. 2 However, according to the complainant, as the complainant did not give favourable response to the applicant, on 25th October 2009 the applicant called him on his mobile phone and threatened him that if he does not enter into a sale transaction of his land, the complainant would be met with dire consequences and on the same day at about 2.15 p.m. a group of persons came there and assaulted the complainant and his nephew, tried to kidnap them in Indica car. However, they were saved in the nick of time by the people who were gathered there after hearing the shouts of the complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the present applicant was not present on the scene of offence when the complainant and his nephew were assaulted. He further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant in the assault by the unknown persons. He also submitted that in any case, the provisions of Section 364­A are not attracted since the complainant was not abducted or kidnapped. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant may be released on bail in the event of his arrest. 4. It is not possible to accept these submissions taking into consideration the allegations made in the complaint and the role 3 attributed to the present applicant viz. threatening the complainant to sell his own land or to pay ransom amount to him which was followed by assault on the complainant and his nephew. It cannot be said that the applicant is not involved in the alleged incident or no role is attributed to him. The question, whether the provisions of Section 364­A of the Indian Penal Code are attracted or not, will be considered at the time of trial. In any event, taking into consideration the nature of allegations made in the complaint, in my view, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The present Anticipatory Bail is rejected. [V.M.KANADE, J]