1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.765 OF 2011 Baliram Hari Wagh ..Applicant. v/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents. Mr. A.P.Mundargi, Sr. Counsel i/by Prabhakar Jadhav, advs. for the Applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 9th September, 2011 PC : 1 Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in crime no.78 of 2011 registered at Solapur Jail Road Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 395, 397, 506(2) IPC . 2 From the prosecution case, it appeas that the present applicant and one Mahesh Patil husband of the first informant Rupa had entered into certain contract and in respect of the contract, there were certain disputes. On 16.6.2011 the present applicant alongwith some persons forcibly took said Mahesh to the bank and checked about the balance in his account and thereafter, he was forcibly abducted and taken in the vehicle. Thereafter, he was severely beaten. They themselves took him to a doctor and then to another hospital for treatment. Report was lodged on 16.6.2011 at about 3.30 p.m. by wife of Mahesh when she got information that her husband was abducted. On 19.6.2011, the said Mahesh was discharged from the hospital after treatment. As per his statement, his ATM cards and some amount were snatched by the present applicant and his companions and 2 they had also beaten him. 3 According to the applicant, said Mahesh had received huge amounts from the present applicant for execution of certain contract but neither he had executed the contract nor he repaid money. Therefore, the applicant had filed civil suit for recovery of Rs.55 lac from Mahesh in the Court of C.J.S.D., in October, 2010 and he had also filed two cases under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. for bouncing of cheques of Rs.12 lac and Rs. 8,80,000/- respectively in the Court of J.M.F.C. Malshiras. In those matters notice and summons were issued to Mahesh but he was avoiding to appear. According to him, only as counter blast of those cases filed by the applicant, this false case has been filed by the Mahesh and his wife. 4 There is no dispute about filing of civil and criminal cases by the applicant against Mahesh in October, 2010 and pendency of those matters. It shows that appplicat had taken lawful recourse for the recovery of the money. It appears that total claim of the applicant against Mahesh was Rs.55 lacs or more than that. The statement of Mahesh does not disclose where he was taken and where he was kept on 16.6.2011. It appears that he was first taken to Siddhesh hospital on 16.6.2011 at 10 p.m. by the applicant and his companions. From there, he was shifted to another hospital where he was given conservative treatment and was discharged. It appears that he was never taken to the government hospital nor there is certificate from the Government hospital . If prosecution story is believed, intention of the applicant and his companions was certainly not to cause his death or to confine said Mahesh endangering his life. In view of this, sections 363, 364 IPC may not be applicable. The story of snatching the amount of Rs.9,000/- and committing dacoity needs to be looked in the light of claim of the applicant of more than Rs.55 lac from Mahesh. None of the injuries was grievous hurt even as per the certificate from the private 3 doctor. There is nothing to show that any weapon was used in the commission of crime. Possibly serious sections are invoked to see that the applicant is not granted bail. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and the earlier litigation, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 5 Therefore, in the event of arrest in crime no. 78/2011, the applicant shall be released on his executing PR of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount with the condition that he shall make himself available to the police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation/investigation and shall also appear at Solapur Jail Road police station on 12th October, 2011 at 11 a.m. and thereafter, as and when he may be required. He shall not misuse the bail. 6 The learned APP shall communicate the order to the concerned police station. 7 Application stands disposed off. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)