[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2937 OF 2008 Rajkumar Tiwari ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Ashok Bhatia Advocate for Applicant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.119 of 2008 of Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai. 3. The complainant has stated that there was some dispute with one Maninath Tiwari. The complainant has stated that on 29.5.2008 the applicant along with two others came to the house of the complainant. The applicant showed a country made firearm to the complainant and told him that he [-2-] should quietly accompany them. The complainant and his father were made to sit in Tata SIERA No.MH-04/AC-3370. The applicant was driving the said vehicle and there were five other persons in the said vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant and his father were taken to the house of Maninath Tiwari. There demand was made for Rs.21 lakhs. Signatures of the complainant were forcibly taken on four blank papers. Thereafter demand was made for cheque, however, the complainant stated that he did not have the cheque book with him, hence, the complainant and his father were again taken to the house of the complainant. At that time, applicant was driving the vehicle. The other accused persons were sitting in the car. The complainant alone went up to his house and got a cheque. On the said cheque, the accused persons filled in the amount of Rs.19,92,000/-. The complainant was threatened. Thereafter, the complainant and his father were set free. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that this is a false case as the amount demanded was Rs.21 lakhs, however, cheque was only for Rs.19,92,000/-. In my opinion, just because [-3-] the amount filled in the cheque was Rs.19,92,000/-, this would not necessarily suggest that it is a false complaint. Thereafter, it was submitted that though the cheque was taken on 29.5.2008, it was deposited in the bank on 30.5.2008. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that if the cheque was taken on 29.5.2008, it ought to have been deposited in the bank on the very same day. However, it is seen that the complainant and his father were abducted at about 11.45 a.m. and thereafter they were taken to some other place. Thereafter, the complainant was brought to his house at 3 p.m. Thereafter, the cheque was handed over, hence, in such circumstances, even if the cheque was put in the bank on the next day, it would not be a cause for any suspicion. 5. It was further submitted that if the complainant and his father were abducted, demand would have been for cash and cheque would not have been demanded. Accused persons may take valuables in any form whether it is a cash or cheque. The fact remains that after using deadly weapons, the complainant and his father were abducted by the applicant and others and thereafter, the signatures [-4-] of the complainant were taken on blank papers and stamp paper and cheque was also taken from the complainant after giving threats. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that three of the co-accused have been granted bail. However, it is seen that the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail. It is well settled that considerations for bail and anticipatory bail are entirely different. The Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Anil Sharma State Vs. Anil Sharma State Vs. Anil Sharma reported in 1997 S.C.C. (Cri.) 1039, reported in 1997 S.C.C. (Cri.) 1039, reported in 1997 S.C.C. (Cri.) 1039, has observed that the considerations for bail and anticipatory bail are quite different, hence, the fact that co-accused was granted bail, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. 7. Reliance is placed on a decision of Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Jagannath Jagannath Jagannath Ramchandra Biyani Vs. State of Maharashtra; 1981 Ramchandra Biyani Vs. State of Maharashtra; 1981 Ramchandra Biyani Vs. State of Maharashtra; 1981 Mh.L.J. 795 Mh.L.J. 795 Mh.L.J. 795 wherein it is observed that "merely because prosecution claims that accused is wanted in police custody for investigation is no ground to refuse bail." However, in the present case, the material on record shows that the applicant [-5-] abducted two persons at the point of dangerous weapons. Offence is serious in nature. The material on record is as such to point out an accusing finger towards the applicant. The Apex Court in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Directorate of Enforcement Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 978 978 has observed 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. 8. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Nagpaul and Sanjeev Nagpaul and Sanjeev Nagpaul and Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in JT 2001 Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in JT 2001 Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in JT 2001 (Suppl.1) S.C.580. (Suppl.1) S.C.580. (Suppl.1) S.C.580. In the said case, it is observed that "as the allegations show that the dispute is of civil nature, anticipatory bail can be granted." The signatures of the complainant have been taken on four blank papers as well as on stamp paper, hence, custody of the applicant would be very much necessary for recovery of the said documents. As observed earlier, the offence in the present case is serious in nature. Moreover, looking to the material on record and in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case [-6-] of P.V.Prabhakar Rao (supra), P.V.Prabhakar Rao (supra), P.V.Prabhakar Rao (supra), this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]