[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3006 OF 2008 Datta Narayan Rane and two others ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Shekhar A.Ingawale Advocate for Applicants Mr.Rajesh More APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.71 of 2008 of Ichalkaranji (Gaobhag) Police Station, Dist.Kolhapur. The said case is mainly under section 384 of IPC. 3. The complainant who is a lady, has stated that the applicant was known to her husband and they used to move together, however, her husband stopped meeting the applicant. Hence, the applicant came to the house of the complainant and threatened her that her husband should be sent. On account of the threat, the complainant and her husband left the [-2-] house in which they were residing and went to reside at another place. However, there also, the applicant went to the house of the complainant and he took Rs.30,000/- from the complainant. The complainant has stated that her husband was also threatened and from time to time Rs.30,000/- was taken from him. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR. He has stated that the incident took place on 10.6.2008 however, the FIR was lodged on 23.6.2008. However, it is seen that though the applicant was threatened the complainant on 10.6.2008, she has stated that from time to time, the applicant has threatened the complainant and he had taken money from her. Besides this, the applicant has also taken money from one Tulsabai. The statement of Tulsabai also shows that the applicant took Rs.30,000/- from her under threat. The applicant clearly told her that he is not afraid of anyone and whenever he demands, Tulsabai should give money otherwise his persons would see her. 5. The learned advocate for the applicant [-3-] submitted that there are three complaints registered against the applicant and all these complaints are politically motivated. He has stated that after the applicant lodged public interest litigation, these complaints came to be registered at the instance of the respondent in the PIL. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on word "funter" which has been used in all the complaints. It is seen that complaints were given in Kannad language. All these complaints were initially given at Ichalkaranji police station. Thereafter, one of the complaints was transferred to Vadgaon Police station, Dist.Kolhapur. It appears that the writer of the complaints was the same person, hence, the language used by him while translating the complaints from Kannad to Marathi would be more or less the same. Hence, just because the word "funter" appears in all the complaints, it cannot be said that they are false complaints. 6. Looking to the fact that in the present case, complainant has stated that the applicant threatened her and he took money from her and her husband and money was taken in a similar manner from Tulsabai, I do not think that this is a fit [-4-] case to grant anticipatory bail. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]