..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3191 OF 2008 1. Nandkumar Suresh Kedari, & 2. Prasad Anant Zagade. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Rajeev Patil, Sr.Counsel i/b. Mr.Rakesh Bhatkar, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 23rd September, 2008. DATED : 23rd September, 2008. DATED : 23rd September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.20 of 2008 of Jaigad Police Station, Ratnagiri. The said case is mainly under Sections 436, 286, 387 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 3. Witness Pankaj has stated that applicant ..(2).. No.1 used to frequently threaten the officers of Jindal Company. He has stated that in his presence both the applicants along with others hatched a plan to cause an explosion in the company. The reasons for causing explosion is that both the applicants wanted a huge amount from the company. Hence, after causing the explosion, the officers of the company would be amenable to give a huge amounts to both the applicants. Thereafter the plan was executed and an explosion took place in the company. Thereafter calls were received by the officers of the company asking huge amounts of money i.e. Rs.15 crores. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that Pankaj was actually was an accused and thereafter the prosecution has made him a witness. However, the learned APP states that at no point of time Pankaj was accused and as per the prosecution he was always a witness in the said case. 5. The statement of Pankaj and other material on record clearly shows the involvement of the applicants in planting explosives in the company, ..(3).. explosives exploding in the company and thereafter demands to extort an amount of Rs.15 crores from the company. Looking to the material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 6. On the request of learned Counsel for the applicants, the applicants are granted till 30th September, 2008 to surrender. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)