1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.457 OF 2010. VILAS MAHADEORAO INGOLE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PSO OF P.S. CITY KOTWALI, AMRAVATI. ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari Senior Advocate with Shri A. S. Mardikar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri V. A. Thakre, APP for respondent State. Coram : A.H. JOSHI, J. Date : 31st March, 2010. 1. This is an application for regular bail. 2. Crime No.58 of 2010 under Section 147, 149, 342, 355, 506(II), 388 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code has been registered in Police Station City Kotwali, Amrvati. 3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari appearing for Mr. A. S. Mardikar and Mr. V. A. Thakre, APP for the respondent State. 4. Perused the affidavit in reply and case diary. 5. It is seen that in the First Information Report, the name of the accused has been mentioned at three places. The conclusive statement indicates 2 that according to the complainant, the applicant Vilas Mahadeorao Ingole was fully involved in the case. The First Information Report does not narrate the exact involvement. 6. The complainant is not sure as to whether the applicant herein is the person at whose behest or for whom the acts of various accused persons which have led to commission of alleged offence were done. 7. Various statements recorded by the police, as a part of investigation, indicate that the applicant was in touch with various accused persons on Mobile phone. At this stage, if at all any inference against the applicant is to be drawn, it would be that the applicant has been involved in some acts, but not any specific act. 8. Learned Senior Advocate argues that the description contained in the First Information Report at the most may suggest that the complainant was detained for extortion to be done from him, but not for ransom to be recovered from some one. He further argues that even on accepting everything that is contained in the First Information Report and other statements, it would, at the most, be a case under Section 388 of the Indian Penal Code and ingredients of Section 364-A are not made out. 9. This case was heard in 1st session, and 3 learned APP had taken time to discuss the matter with the investigating agency to present as to how the ingredients of Section 364-A are satisfied. In the afternoon session, learned APP states that this aspect would be considered by the Investigating Officer at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. However, learned APP is not in a position to answer the query put by this Court as to how it can be shown that the ransom amount was asked from some other persons for which the complainant was detained by the accused persons. 10. According to the investigating agency, the applicant is the main person involved in the crime at whose behest all the things complained of have been done. However, the material collected by the police does not sufficiently demonstrate involvement of the applicant with the purpose it is alleged. 11. In this background, prima facie, a strong doubt arises as to involvement of the applicant in the commission of offence as primary accused. 12. In the result, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and solvent surety in a sum of Rs.25,000/-. 14. Hamdast allowed. 4 Judge |mule|