( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3906 OF 2010 Shaikh Mujahed Shaikh Jamir APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. D.S. Manorkar, advocate holding for Mr. S.G. Ladda, advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Heard Mr. Manorkar, holding for Mr. S.G. Ladda, advocate for the applicant. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence and is likely to be humiliated as a result of arrest. He would further submit that the chargesheet has been filed ( 2 ) against the main accused. 4. The incident giving rise to the prosecution occurred on 20th December, 2009 at about 4 p.m. The F.I.R. purports to show that in all four (4) persons alighted from a jeep vehicle which was stopped in front of the house of the informant. They were armed with deadly weapons. They were followed by other six (6) persons including the present applicant. It is alleged that the group of six (6) persons including the applicant was armed with sticks and axes. It is alleged that the applicant forcibly snatched away a gold neckless and another ornament from neck of Mumtajbee who is the daughter- in-law of the informant. 5. The recitals of the F.I.R. prima facie involve the applicant in the alleged incident. The matter does not stop here. He had applied for pre-arrest bail before the Court of Sessions. His first application was dismissed by the Sessions Court. He preferred second application, alleging that there was change in the circumstances for the reason that the chargesheet was filed against the other accused. He was shown as absconding accused under section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His second pre-arrest bail application was ( 3 ) dismissed on 26th August, 2010. Needless to say since December, 2009, till date, the applicant has eluded the arrest and does not appear to be law-abiding person. Inspite of dismissal of his first anticipatory bail application, he did not surrender before the police, nor made out any good ground for consideration of the application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under the circumstances, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief and his arrest cannot be regarded as without foundation. The application is, therefore, dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3906-10