Cri. Apln. No. 2237/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2237 OF 2011 Mangal s/o. Jemla Jadhav, R/o. Ashta (Tanda), Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. ....Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr.B.J. Sonawane, APP for State/respondent. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 10th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for anticipatory bail in Cr. No. 55/2010 registered with Mahur Police Station, District Nanded for offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. APP has produced papers of investigation. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Subash Potdar, goldsmith. He has made allegations that Rameshwar Chavan was acquainted with him and Rameshwar Chavan promised to sell gold at low cost. He had shown willingness to sell 2 k.g. of gold for consideration of Rs. twelve lacs. Rameshwar Chavan was calling the complainant on phone and ultimately the complainant went to the spot fixed by Rameshwar with the amount of Rs. 2 lacs on 22.8.2010. Cri. Apln. No. 2237/11 2 3. He has made allegations that Rameshwar was in the company of two persons and they forceably took away that amount which was brought by him. Motorcycle and trax jeep were used by Rameshwar and they were ready with weapons. They gave him beating and they went away. Only Rameshwar was known to the complainant and others were not known. Police papers show that the present applicant was seen with Rameshwar on the spot by witness like Kailash Rathod. There is statement of other witness like Hiramal Chavan to the effect that after the incident the present applicant was spending money and he was with one unknown person. They were spending money on anything and huge amount was with him. There is statement of Arjun Jadhav to show that even prior to the incident present applicant had disclosed plan to deceive the person from Andhra Pradesh by saying that he will supply gold. 4. Though the incident took place in the month of August 2010 and other accused are arrested, police could not arrest the present applicant and he is shown as absconding in the chargesheet. The discretionary relief cannot be used in favour of such person. There is sufficient material on record to make out prima facie case against the applicant under section 395 of IPC. So this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. So the application stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln2237.11