..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1311 OF 2008 Mr.Ibrar Hakikullah Shah. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. ... Mr.Anil S. Gawas, Adv. for the applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No.171 of 2007 of B.K.C. Police Station. The said case is mainly under Sections 363, 364(A) and 365 of IPC. 3. The victim Hasmukh Jain who is aged 23 years has stated that he is the son of a jeweller. On 4.11.2007, four persons came near him and they caught him and pushed him into a taxi. All the ..(2).. four persons also sat in the taxi. Thereafter, one of them took pistol like article and pointed it at the stomach of Hasmukh Jain. Hasmukh Jain was threatened not to make any noise. Thereafter Hasmukh was told to make arrangements for Rs.20 lakhs from his father. The police intercepted the said taxi and Hasmukh Jain as well as the present applicant were found in the said taxi. Thus it is seen that the material on record clearly implicates the present applicant. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has pointed out that coaccused Dilip Bisht and Chetan Jain have been released on bail by this Court and the applicant is seeking bail on the ground of parity. The learned APP pointed out that these two accused persons were not in the taxi and hence there is no question of parity. 5. Thereafter the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that when bail was granted to the coaccused Dilip and Chetan an observation was made by the Court that there is no demand for ransom hence prima facie offence under Section 364(A) IPC is not made out. Hence bail came to be ..(3).. granted to the coaccused. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that in view of the observations of this Court that there is no demand for ransom, no case is made out for the offence under Section 364(A) IPC. As observed earlier, the victim has clearly stated about the demand by the applicant. The learned APP who appeared in both the matters has not pointed out to the Court that the victim has stated that demand was made by the accused persons for ransom of Rs.20 lakhs. As observed earlier, the victim in the present case has clearly stated about the demand and hence case is made out under Section 364(A) IPC. In this view of the matter, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)