1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2047 OF 2010 Meena Apel Shaikh )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr. Akhilesh Upadhyay for the applicant. Mr. Y. S. Shinde APP for the State. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 30 th April, 2010 PC 1 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is shown as an accused in C.R.No.125/2010 registered by the Varsova police station for alleged offence under Section 381 of IPC. The crime has been registered on a complaint made by one Kanaiya Devjan. It is the case of the complainant that the present applicant was engaged as a maid servant in their house. That the applicant used to work with them part time from morning 9.30 A.M to 12.30 in the afternoon. That on 8.4.2010 she came to work in the morning and took amount of Rs.1000/- from his mother and without working on the day, left the premises. When the complainant contacted the applicant on her mobile phone, she informed him that she will be coming for work. On 9.4.2010 at about 10.00 A.M in the morning the complainant discovered that certain gold ornaments and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- was missing from his cupboard. He therefore lodged a complaint with the police. Police have recorded the statement of the sister of the present applicant and in the said statement, sister of the applicant has stated before the police that her sister-applicant has gone away to 2 Calcutta and that when she contacted her sister on mobile, her sister-applicant admitted that she has stolen the money. It is contended that the statement of the sister of the present applicant has been falsely recorded under duress. Be that as it may, the conduct of the applicant in leaving the city abruptly is by itself highly suspicious. It cannot be said at this stage that the statement of the applicant’s sister has been obtained under duress. The monies and ornaments are required to be recovered and it is also necessary to establish the circumstances in which theft if any, was committed. Not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Rejected. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3