1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.926 OF 2010 Shivaji s/o Subhash Yachwad ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Mrs. Vaishali More, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 25th March, 2010. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with C.R. No.1/2010 registered at Mukramabad Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the outset, the applicant had preferred application for anticipatory bail i.e. Misc. Criminal Application No.29/2010, but 2 same was rejected by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, by order dated 10.2.2010 and thereafter the applicant has approached to this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. It appears that the complaint was registered on the report lodged by one Mr. Ramdas Bajnare that the applicant and co-accused Waman enticed his wife Jijabai from his lawful guardianship in collusion with each other and abducted her on 30.12.2009 and the said F.I.R. came to be lodged on 2.1.2010. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. since the alleged incident occurred on 30.12.2009, but the F.I.R. came to be lodged after three days i.e. 2.1.2010. It is also canvassed that the another co-accused namely Waman was arrested and he has been released on bail and there is necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant herein. 6. The learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and submitted that the statement of Tejerao Daulate, who is the eye witness to the occurrence of incident and the statement of Jijabai herself involves the applicant in the offence as well as it is submitted that the motorcycle is yet to be recovered and, therefore, there is necessity of custodial interrogation and hence, learned 3 A.P.P. submitted that present application be dismissed. 7. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions, it is apparent that the statement of Tejerao, who witnessed the occurrence of incident while Jijabai went along with co-accused Waman and applicant herein i.e. Shivaji was waiting on the red colour motorcycle and thereafter applicant took both of them on the said motorcycle and, therefore, it appears that it was a pre-arranged plan between the applicant, co- accused Waman and Jijabai and, therefore, apparently there is prima facie case against the applicant herein. Moreover, the statement of Jijabai apparently makes out the conspiracy and involves the applicant in the alleged crime. Besides that, the motorcycle is yet to be recovered and therefore also custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. The aspect of delay can be considered at the time of trial and not at this stage. 8. In the circumstances, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri926.10