1 CRI.APPL.NO.1097 OF 2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1097 OF 2011 (Mahadeo Gajerao More and anr Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.J.Salunke, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:1/4/2011 1. Heard Shri Salunke, learned Advocate for the accused/applicants. The accused/applicant seeks bail in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.33/2010, registered at Paranda Police Station, dist. Osmanabad, for the offense under Sections 323, 364, 365, 368, 392, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The facts in the complaint are as under: Based on a complaint in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.253/2010 by Bhausaheb Dadasaheb Jagtap before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Paranda. Investigation in terms of Section 2 CRI.APPL.NO.1097 OF 2011 156(3) Cr.P.C. was directed, resulted into registration of aforesaid crime. During the course of investigation, statement of Bandu Shrirang Jadhav, the so called eye witness, Bibhishan Prakash Ingale was recorded. The complainant narrated the events in tune to the assertion in the complaint. 3. Learned Counsel submits that no event, as has been projected in the FIR, has ever taken place. The parties are known to each other. There was monetary transaction between accused/applicant and the complainant, and as a counter to avoid its payment, false prosecution is launched. 4. Learned Counsel also submits, one of the accused Appasaheb arrayed in the said prosecution has moved before the learned Sessions Judge by application No.25/2011, and he has been directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest in the said Crime No.33/2010 by order dt.2nd Feb.,2011. 3 CRI.APPL.NO.1097 OF 2011 5. The contention that the other applicant Appasaheb has been released is substantiated by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, referred above, however, before the learned Sessions Judge a specific stand was taken by said Appasaheb that he was not present at the material time as he was in employment as Superintendent, at Anudanit Prathmik Ashramshala, Chirner for which he has produced some documentary evidence before the learned Sessions Judge and, based on the same, aforesaid orders were passed. Such principle of parity would not be applicable to be benedicted in the present case. The three statements referred above primarily indicate, the accused/applicants with specific role of snatching the huge amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rs. two lacs) which was in the pocket of the complainant. The doubt raised about carrying such huge amount in the wee hours has been explained by the complainant; that it was for disbursal as wage to harvesters of sugarcane. The transaction between the parties to which reference was given also 4 CRI.APPL.NO.1097 OF 2011 revolves to payment of labours or harvesters of the sugarcane. Considering this aspect of the matter, it is not imaginary that the complainant could carry such amount and that too at a far off place, as has been canvassed. Application lacks merit, dismissed. Observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/1097-11crapl