1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No.414/2011 ( Prem Raju Pawar ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Asegaon, Distt. Washim ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. N. A. Vyawahare, Adv. for applicant. Mr. M.J. Khan, A.P.P. for State/respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 2.12.2011. 1. This is an application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for releasing the applicant/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.54/2011 registered with the police station Asegaon for the offence punishable under sections 420, 395 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of report lodged by one Sukhdeo Patil. It is alleged that the accused Nilesh Rathod approached him and disclosed that he had discovered a treasure of gold coins in the field of his friend. He offered to sell him the gold weighing about five to six kilograms for the sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. To make a fortune on 1/10/2011 the complainant went to Mangrul Pir and then to the spot along with Nilesh Rathod and one Ravi Rathod. He was accompanied 2 by his driver. The accused Nilesh Rathod and Ravi Rathod demanded a bag containing cash of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant. The complainant insisted upon the accused persons that firstly he should be handed over gold and then he would hand over them cash amount. At that time five to six persons appeared and snatched a bag containing Rs.9,00,000/-. On these allegations, the aforesaid offence is registered and in that the present applicant is arrayed as an accused. The report to this effect was lodged on 10/10/2011. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that there has been inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Secondly, the allegations are that on the spot five to six persons had snatched the bag containing the cash, whereas total number of the accused arrayed in the crime has gone up to twenty three. He being completely innocent, the order of pre-arrest bail may be granted in his favour. 3. Heard both sides. Although there is no reply filed by learned A.P.P. on record, the reply filed by the police before learned Additional Sessions Judge resisting the anticipatory bail application is available on record. After effecting arrest of the seven accused persons what is transpired in the investigation is 3 that one Vitthal Pandurang Pawar, who is accused no.1, had hatched the entire conspiracy and he was assisted by the present applicant/accused. After complainant was robbed off the cash of Rs.9,00,000/- and gold chain weighing about 3.5 tolas, the accused persons travelled in Innova car and came to the place Bhoyni Kupta Fata and distributed the booty. It is further alleged that the accused got share of Rs.30,000/-. As regards delay in filing the F.I.R., it is stated that the complainant is resident of Mumbra, district Thane and after the incident he was completely disturbed. 4. The aforesaid reply point out the involvement of the applicant/accused and for that his custodial interrogation is necessary. Considering the gravity and nature of the offence, I am of the view that the discretion of issuing directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be exercised. 5. Application is rejected. 6. Time till Tuesday i.e. 6th of December 2011 is granted to surrender the applicant/accused before the police. JUDGE Tambaskar.