..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2214 OF 2008 Sunil G. Sharma. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. ... Mr.K.H.Giri, Adv. for applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.119 of 2008 of Meghwadi police station. The said case is under Sections 364A, 382, 143, 144, 147, 149 read with 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 & 25 of the Arms Act. 3. It is the prosecution case that the complainant had some dispute with some Manonath Tiwari. On 29.5.2008, Manonath Tiwari along with ..(2).. some other persons forcibly made the complainant and his father sit in a Tata Sierra. Coaccuased Rajkumar Tiwari pointed a country-made pistol at the complainant and told them not to make any noise. Thereafter they were taken to the house of Manonath Tiwari. In the said house about 7-8 persons were there. All the doors and windows were closed. The complainant was threatened as to when he would give Rs.21 lakhs which he had taken for business purpose. The complainant stated that he did not know about such amount. Thereafter chopper was placed on the neck of the father of the complainant and the signature of the complainant was taken on four blank papers and on one stamp paper of Rs.50/-. The applicant was present there and he took the signature of the complainant on the blank papers and the stamp paper. Thereafter demand was made from the complainant for a cheque of Rs.19 lakhs and the complainant was taken to his house where cheque of about Rs.19 lakhs was taken from him. The the complainant was threatened and allowed to go. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant ..(3).. submitted that the incident has taken place on 29.5.2008 and the FIR is lodged on 30.5.2008. He submitted that this shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, the learned APP stated that complaint was lodged on 29.5.2008 at about 3:00 p.m. and the FIR is lodged at 2:25 a.m. on 30.5.2008. 5. Looking to the facts and averments in the FIR, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The FIR clearly implicates the applicant. The Investigating Agency is seeking custody of the applicant, in order to recover the blank papers on which the signatures of the complainant were taken. 6. In my view, the material collected by the prosecution in the present case is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the present applicant. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, P.V.Prabhakar Rao, P.V.Prabhakar Rao, reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 ..(4).. that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 7. On request of the learned Advocate for the applicant, time to surrender is granted upto 26th July, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)