mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 422 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST.) NO. 248 OF 2010 PRAMOD @ SURESH DASHRATH MAJI .. APPLICANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. RESPONDENT Mr. S. S. Bhise, Advocate appointed for applicant Ms. P. H. Kantharia, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: 29th March, 2010 P.C. The applicant has been convicted for life under Section 364-A of the I.P.C. The applicant has prayed for bail. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that when the applicant allegedly took away the complainant’s son and daughter, the complainant was not at home. Therefore, the complainant has not witnessed the alleged taking away of his children. Counsel submitted that the prosecution case is that brother-in-law of the complainant was present and he informed the complainant about the incident. No reliance can be placed on such hearsay evidence. Learned counsel submitted that, therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 3. It is not possible for us to accede to the request of learned counsel. The fact that the applicant kidnapped the complainant’s son is prima facie established because the complainant’s son was found in the house of the applicant’s sister in Bihar. This lends support to the case of the prosecution that the applicant took away the son of the complainant from his residential house. Admittedly the applicant was known to the complainant. He used to visit their house. The brother-in-law of the complainant was present when the complainant’s children were taken away by the applicant. Hence he has been examined by the prosecution. A call demanding extortion money was received by the complainant. He has deposed about it. 4. In the circumstances bail cannot be granted to the applicant. Application is dismissed. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)