1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1232 OF 2010 Parvez Khaisar Siddiqui ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents ..... Shri K.S.Bhore, advocate for the applicant Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 5th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri K.S.Bhore, advocate for the applicant and Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondents. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest under CR No. 26 of 2010, registered at Kalamb police station, District Osmanabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Mahananda Mali on 4.3.2010, alleging that on 7.1.2010 her daughter namely Priyanka left 2 the house in the after noon, taking cash of Rs.100/- for purchase of Jawar and rang up at about 2.00 p.m. to her and informed that the applicant namely Parvez Khaisar Siddiqui and other two accused persons threatened her to withdraw the earlier case and kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship of the complainant, and therefore, she filed missing complaint No. 2 of 2010 in that respect. 4 On this background, learned counsel for the applicant urged that although the alleged offence was committed on 7.1.2010, the complaint came to be lodged after the substantial delay i.e. on 4.3.2010 and said delay creates suspicion in respect of the said complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant also canvassed that as regards the earlier complaint, the complainant had already executed an affidavit on 9.4.2008 and the applicant has been exonerated therefrom. 5 Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the alleged delay can be considered at the time of trial and not at this stage. Moreover, it is also submitted that there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident. It is further submitted that there is no question of false implication of the applicant in this offence and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further progress in the investigation, and therefore, urged that present application be dismissed. 6 On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering 3 the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the prosecution has recorded statements of witnesses during the course of investigation and there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident, who raise fingers against the applicant herein. Moreover, it is apparent that the complainant has filed missing complaint no.2 of 2010 in respect of her daughter on 7.1.2010. Apart from that, the alleged delay in lodging the first information report can be considered at the time of trial after appreciating the evidence. It also appears that the age of the girl namely Priyanka is about 18 years. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential for the further progress in the investigation in proper perspective. 7 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 1232 of 2010, being sans merit, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/crap1232.10