..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3583 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. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 24th October, 2008. DATED : 24th October, 2008. DATED : 24th October, 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. The applicants had earlier preferred an ..(2).. application for anticipatory bail before this Court which came to be rejected by order dated 23rd September, 2008. It is stated that the present application is preferred on fresh ground. The fresh ground is that by order dated 23rd September, 2008, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants came to be rejected mainly relying on the statement of witness Pankaj. This Court has observed that, " Witness Pankaj has stated that applicant 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 ..(3).. states that the said witness Pankaj has filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission stating therein that his statement before the police was not voluntary and he was forced to implicate the applicants. Even assuming that is so, I find that besides the statement of Pankaj there is other material including the statements of other witnesses including one Bashir Shaikh, which shows that the applicants along with some other accused had hatched a plan to cause an explosion in the company. Even if the statement of Pankaj is excluded from consideration, I find that there is enough material which implicates the applicants in a case of causing explosion in the company. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)