*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3697/2009 Deepak Madhav Mankar. ..Applicant -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent ............... Mr.Uday Warunjikar, Advocate i/b Mayur Narendra and Company, for the Applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P., for the Respondent/State. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 25th August, 2009. PC:- 1 The Applicant, consequent upon his arrest on 06.07.2009 is in judicial custody. The Applicant has moved the present application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Applicant has been arrested in Crime No.150/2009 of Khadak Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, 384, 395, 120-B, 336, 337, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant is elected Corporator of the Pune Municipal Corporation and claims to be social worker. 2 According to the prosecution, the Complainant and his family members have 1/3rd share in the ancestral house property situated at Shukrawar Peth, Pune and other branch of Nathu family *2* had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share. During the pendency of suit which was being opposed by the Complainant, the Plaintiffs i.e. members of other branch of Nathu family had decided to sale their undivided share in the house property. Hence, an advertisement was issued in local news papers expressing their intention to sale undivided share in the house property. The Complainant has also issued a public notice informing the people at large that the Complainant and his family members are not ready and willing to sale their undivided share in the house property. Be that as it may, 2/3rd undivided share came to be purchased by one Sudhir Karnataki under the registered conveyance on 18.10.2007. It is further case of the prosecution that the said Sudhir Karnataki had conspired with the present Applicant and one Sadhana Vartak who are co-accused to intimidate, coerce and pressurize the Complainant and his family members with a view to compel them to execute the sale deed of their 1/3rd share. With the said object in mind, about 40 persons tress-passed into the house of the complainant on 06.2.2008 and demolished part of the Complainant’s house premises and removed some material from the place of incident. It is further stated in the FIR that Sadhana Vartak had taken the Complainant in her car to Congress Bhavan to see the present Applicant Deepak Mankar. She had introduced the Complainant to the present Applicant by saying that he is the same Mr.Nathu whose 1/3rd share has been purchased. The present Applicant at that point of time had told the Complainant that the Applicant had thought of paying a sum of Rs.1 Crore as an amount of consideration for the Complainant’s share in the house property, *3* however, as Sadhana Vartak had asked for payment of Rs.1.25 Crore, the Applicant has decided to pay a sum of Rs.1.25 Crore. The Complainant was asked to vacate the premises. It can, thus, be seen that according to the complaint the present Applicant had directed the Complainant to execute the sale deed and vacate the premises and receive a sum of Rs.1.25 Crore by way of consideration of the undivided share of the Complainant. On the same day, Sadhana Vartak/co-accused directed the Complainant to immediately call his son who is serving with the Indian Air Force so that the registered conveyance can be executed immediately. According to the prosecution, because of the intimidation, threat and coercion to the life and person of the near and dear, the Complainant had called his son. The Complainant was also threatened that he should deposit the amount of Rs.1.25 Crore given under the Demand Draft in the account and show the receipt. The Complainant was also threatened by the co-accused Sadhana Vartak that if the Complainant refuses to accept Rs.1.25 Crore as consideration of the property the Complainant would loose the money so also the property. Under threat and coercion, the Complainant was forced to accept the Demand Draft and was also forced to deposit the same in the Bank. Thus, definite role has been attributed to the present Applicant in regard to commission of the serious offences under Sections 384 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 According to the learned counsel for the Applicant, the Applicant is in custody since 06.07.2009 and hence, ought to be released on bail. 4 Per contra, according to the learned APP, during the *4* course of investigation it has been revealed that the co-accused Sadhana Vartak is having the joint account with the present Applicant. It is then submitted that there is definite conspiracy hatched in between the present Applicant, Sadhana Vartak and Sudhir Karnataki. Sudhir Karnataki has paid a sum of Rs.25 Lac in favour of Sadhana Vartak by cheque and the said amount has been deposited in the joint account of Sadhana Vartak and the present Applicant. It is submitted that further investigation is in progress and if and in case the Applicant is released on bail he would tamper the evidence and pressurize the witnesses. It is also pointed out that there are 10 other crimes registered against the present Applicant over a period of time. Thus, the Applicant would be in position to pressurize the witnesses having regard to his status as Corporator and his criminal antecedents. 5 Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that this is not a fit case wherein the Applicant can be released on bail. In the result, the Application is rejected. (A.P. Deshpande, J)