1 apln3247-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3247 OF 2010 1. Mrs.Swati Rajesh Bhosle, & 2. Kum.Vaibhav Rajesh Bhosle. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.V.V. Purwant, Advocate i/b. M.A. Udgikar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 30TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by two applicants i.e. mother and son. 2. Allegations against them are that when they were staying at the house of the complainant-woman, they had committed theft of certain gold ornaments worth more than Rs.60,000/-. Detailed events are mentioned in the FIR, which is lodged on 5.6.2010. 3. Admittedly the alleged offence of theft from the 2 apln3247-10 residence of the complainant took place between 15.5.2010 and 19.5.2010. The complainant and the present applicants are in distant relations in as much as present applicant No.1 is maternal cousin sister of the complainant. For enjoying the holidays, both the applicants visited the house of the complainant at Panvel, District - Raigad. The applicants are residents of Solapur. As per the earlier plan both the applicants were to stay at the house of the complainant for about a week but they remained in the house of the complainant from 14.5.2010 till 17.5.2010 and did not stay for about a week as earlier decided. When the applicants arrived at the house of the complainant, an amount of Rs. 33,000/- in cash was given by the applicant No.1 to the complainant towards part payment of the earlier loan taken by the applicant to the tune of Rs.55,000/-. Assurance was given that remaining amount will be given shortly. According to the complainant certain gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs.33,000/- was kept in cupboard inside the locker and on 15.5.2010 by 10:30 p.m. in night it was ascertained that the said amount as also the ornaments were available. 3 apln3247-10 Thereafter on 17.5.2010 present applicants hurriedly wound up their tour and went back to Solapur on the pretext that some problem had occurred at her house. Thereafter on 19.5.2010 it was revealed by the complainant that though the amount of Rs.33,000/- and silver articles were intact, the gold ornaments worth Rs.60,000/- and odd were missing. After noticing such theft, telephone calls were made to applicant No.1. However, they were not answered. Apparently after about 20 days time, complaint was lodged with Panvel police station being C.R. No.247 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code. 4. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Considering the circumstances and the alleged factual position as to the applicants are in relation with the complainant, no much significance can be attributed towards such belated lodging of the complainant i.e. 20 days. Definitely a person prior to lodging some complaint and making the allegations of theft against his own relative, 4 apln3247-10 would think many times and also would ascertain whether the contact can be established to such relative in order to have any proper explanation. 5. During the arguments, learned APP for the State submitted that applicant No.2 is a minor boy aged about 13 years and as such there is no need for getting any anticipatory bail to him as the law will take its own course and in the event of his arrest, appropriate steps shall be taken by the police and infact the Juvenile Court will take care of the said matter. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that as the investigation is still continuing, custodial interrogation of the present applicant No.1 is needed. 6. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that it is the defence of the applicants that they had not stayed at the house of the complainant as alleged from 14.5.2010 till 17.5.2010. As such, according to the applicants it is a complaint on complete concoction of the story since the time of the stay of the applicants till the applicants hurriedly left the house on 17.5.2010. 5 apln3247-10 7. Considering the rival submissions and considering the factual position as mentioned above and still considering the time gap between the revelation of the theft and filing of the complaint, in the opinion of this Court the discretionary relief cannot be granted in the present matter. Hence the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.3247 of 2010 for anticipatory bail stands rejected and accordingly disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD 14.apln3247-10