1 BA-1083-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1083 OF 2011 Mr. Durgaprasad Pichiyya Rao ... Applicant (Accused in jail) vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Dnyaneshwahar Deshmukh,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Y.S.Shinde,APP for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 14th November, 2011. P.C. 1. The appliant, who is accused No.2 in Crime No.65 of 2010 registered with Rabale Police Station, Thane, under Sections 386 and 387 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act, seeks to be released on bail. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Anil Patel was making construction of a four floor building at Airoli, Navi Mumbai, in partnership. On 6.1.2010, he received a call to make payment of Rs.25 lakh. Similar calls were repeated on 7.1.2010. He expressed his inability to make payment. The caller introduced himself as man of Anisbhai and agreed to accept Rs.2.5 lakh. After one or two calls, it was agree that payment would be made on 3.2.2010. On 2 BA-1083-11.sxw 3.2.2010, said Anil Patel got a call that two persons of Anisbhai had come to his office, but they had to go back without payment. They again threatened him for payment. Therefore, he agreed to pay the amount on 4.2.2010. Thereafter, Anil Patel approached the police and a trap was arranged. During the trap, accused No. 1 Ashok Shankar Kharat and accused No.2 Durgaprasad Rao were nabbed in the office of Anil Patel. Other two persons were arrested from the nearby garden. During the investigation, it was revealed that the calls were made by accused No.1 Ashok from a phone No.9892618778 and they were channelised through different numbers of foreign countries. At the time of the trap, one mobile handset and one plastic bag containing a brown khaki envelope containing bundles of papers of size of the currency notes were recovered from accused No.1 Ashok. From the person of the applicant, one mobile handset and a visiting card of Omsai Developers was recovered. All the calls were made from the handset found in possession of Ashok Shankar Kharat. 3. Accused No.1 Ashok Shankar Kharat was granted bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. because the Investigating Officer failed to file charge-sheet within the stipulated period of six months and also the extended period. Other two accused persons who were arrested from the garden were granted bail by this Court. The learned APP contended that accused No.1 Ashok was granted bail 3 BA-1083-11.sxw under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and as the charge-sheet is already filed, the principle of parity will not be applicable to the present applicant and he cannot be grated bail. 4. Fact remains that according to the prosecution case, accused No.1 Ashok was the main accused who had made all the calls and who had received the packet containing the bundle of papers purporting to be the currency notes as extortion money. The Investigating Officer by his negligence or otherwise, allowed that accused to be released on bail by not filing charge-sheet within the stipulated period. The role of the present applicant is much less. There is nothing to show that he had made any call nor any bundle of papers purporting to be notes was recovered from him. When the main accused has already been granted bail, I do not see any reason to refuse bail to the present applicant. 5. Therefore, the applicant be released on his executing P.R. of Rs. 25,000/- with a surety in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall report at the police station on fourth Sunday of every month between 4 to 6 p.m. till end of trial. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)