1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 687 OF 2010 1. Chandrakant Tukaram Thopate 2. Dattatray Mahadeo Gavade .. Applicants V/s The State of Maharahstra .. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Prakash Naik for the applicants. Mr. J.P Kharge., A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 7 of 2010 registered at Satara City Police Station, District Satara, for an alleged offence punishable under sections 392 read with 34 I.P.C. 2 3. Anil Babanrao Sable (the complainant) is the owner of the truck bearing registration No.MH-16-B-1575. The truck was financed by Sriram Finance Corporation. The applicants, who are the officers of Rajgad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., claim that they had entered into an agreement with Dayanand Sable (who is not the owner of the truck) for transportation of sugarcane and that he had committed a breach thereof by dispossessing the complainant from the truck and made away with the truck. A F.I.R. was lodged on 4th January 2010. 4. It is the case of the applicants that Dayanand Sable was the driver of the truck who had entered into an agreement and on committing the breach of the agreement, the truck was taken away by them. I fail to see how the applicants could take the custody of the truck even assuming that Dayanand Sable had an authority to enter into an agreement on 3 behalf of the owner and had entered into an agreement to transport the goods. This appears to be a day light robbery in which the owner has been dispossessed with the truck. Hence, in my view, the applicants are not entitled to pre- arrest bail. 5. There is one more reason for denial of pre-arrest bail. Investigation is in progress. The applicants appear to have done the robbery at the instance of other officers of the karkhana whose names could be disclosed during the custodial investigation. 6. In the circumstances, the application for pre-arrest bail is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)