1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.795 OF 2010 Dilip S/o.Bajirao Wagh APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Ms.Usha P.Kale-Wayal, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.16/2010, registered in Jawaharnagar Police Station of Aurangabad, for the offence punishable u/s. 406 of The IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned APP for State. 3. It appears that the offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Kalpana Jagannath, who was residing with the applicant in live-in-relationship after her husband started residing separately. The applicant is the police constable and was removed 2 from services in the year 2006. Applicant had filed a case in the Maharashtra Administration Tribunal, challenging the order of his termination. It is the allegation that 25 tolas of gold was given by the complainant to contest the said case, which is supported by the statement of son of complainant recorded during the investigation. It is the allegation that after the applicant succeeded in the case filed, he driven out the complainant from his house. At that time, he agreed that for future maintenance he will pay certain maintenance to the complainant as well as he will return the gold ornaments which he took from her. So far as the allegation in the complaint about payment of certain amount for future maintenance is concerned, it will not come under the ambit of breach of trust, but not handed over the gold ornaments which were taken from complainant will certainly come under the ambit of scope of section 406 of IPC. If the applicant, who is in the service of police, after taking the gold ornaments from complainant, and after staying with complainant in live-in-relationship, declined to deliver that gold ornaments to the complainant, then this is not a case where discretion to be exercised u/s. 438 of The Cr.P.C. Application sans any merit, hence rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR 2010/cri.appl.795-10