1 aba459-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.459 OF 2011 Ramdas Vinayak Devkar .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the applicant Mr.S.A.Shaikh, A.P.P. for the State CORAM: K.K.TATED, J VACATION COURT DATE: 20th MAY, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. 3. On the report of Sadanand Anand Shetty engaged in hotel business at Ulhasnagar against the applicant and six others, the offence under section 384, 385 r/w s.34 of the I.P.C. has been registered on 14.4.11 at Central Police Station at Ulhasnagar and the applicant apprehending arrest moved Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan for anticipatory bail. It has been rejected on 7.5.11. Hence, 2 aba459-11.doc the applicant has approached this court for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the bail and submitted that custody of the applicant is required during investigation. He submitted that taking into consideration the serious nature of the offence, the applicant and his associates are involved, it will hamper the investigation of the offence in case the applicants is granted bail. It is further submitted that the applicant is absconding and is avoiding arrest. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was out of Kalyan when the crime is alleged to have been committed. He submitted medical certificate dt. 24.4.11 issued by the Medical Officer in support of his submission. Thus, the applicant pleads allibi. He also submits that the main accused Uday Yadav has been released on bail by the trial court. 5. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.P. and going through the FIR and other material on record, it transpires that the applicant and his associates are engaged in extracting 3 aba459-11.doc money from the businessmen by threatening them with serious consequences in case they fail to pay the amount claimed from them. The offence is of a serious nature. The custody of applicant is necessary during the investigation and the release of the applicant by granting anticipatory bail is likely to hamper investigation. 6. Hence, the application is rejected. (K.K.TATED,J.)