1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4855 OF 2010 Mr. Satish Sitaram Gundda ...Applicant. v. The State ...Respondents. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar , adv. For the Applicant. Ms A.T.Javeri, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JANUARY 31, 2011. P.C. 1 Applicant, Satish Gundda who is accused no.4 seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.65 of 2010 registered at Rabale police station, Thane for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 387 r/w section 34 alongwith Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2), 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. 2 According to the prosecution, first informant Anil Patel was making construction of four floor building at Airoli, New Bombay in partnership. On 6.1.2010, he received call to make payment of Rs.25 lac. Similar calls were repeated again from different phone numbers on 7th , 10th and 11th January, 2010. When he expressed his inability, he was threatened. On 11.1.2010 the caller introduced himself as a man of one Anisbhai and he agreed to accept Rs.2.5 lac. After one or two more calls, 2 it was agreed to pay on 3rd February, 2010. On that day at about 10 p.m. a call came that two persons of Anis had come to the office of the complainant but none was present and, therefore, they had to go back and he was directed to make payment on the next day otherwise he would be finished. In view of these calls for extortion of money and threats to life, the first informant Anil lodged a report on 3.2.2010. As agreed amount was to be paid on 4.2.2010, police arranged a trap. During that trap, accused no.1 Ashok Shankar Kharat, and accused no.2 Durgaprasad Rao were nabbed. As per the information given by them they had two companions in the garden and they had come by a motor cycle. Accused no.3 Rajesh and Accused No.4 Satish, who is the applicant, were caught in the garden. 3 During the investigation, it was revealed that all the calls were basically from phone no.9892618778 but they were channelised through different numbers of some foreign countries. According to the prosecution, Anisbhai, for whom accused persons were working, is said to be stationed at Dubai. Said number was of mobile phone with accused no.1 Ashok. At the time of trial, according to the prosecution, the present applicant was also closely connected with him and for this purpose, record of their calls has been produced. Mobile phone number of the 3 present applicant was 9820976175. Complete record of these two phone numbers was produced upto 12th January, 2010, which shows that they were frequently talking to each other on phone. However, no record is produced for the later period and particularly of 3rd and 4th January, 2010. 4 From the call record of these two phones, prima-facie, it can be inferred that the present applicant and the accused no.1 Ashok were in connection with each other very frequently and also at the relevant times when Ashok had made calls to the complainant. The learned counsel for the applicant points out that accused no.1 Ashok, who had allegedly made all the calls and who was allegedly nabbed during the trap has been released on bail because prosecution failed to file charge-sheet within the stipulated period and even within extended period. He contended that as far as the present applicant is concerned except telephonic call record , there is no other material and there is nothing to show that the present applicant had ever made a call to the complainant for any demands and, therefore, he should also be released on bail. The learned APP opposed the application contending that merely because accused no.1 is released under Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C., present applicant can not be given that benefit because charge-sheet is filed within the extended period. 4 5 Even though the charge-sheet is filed against the present applicant within the extended period, fact remains that investigating agency allowed the accused no.1 to be released on bail by not filing charge-sheet for six months after date of arrest. There also appears substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that prima-facie, there was no call by the present applicant himself to the complainant. Therefore, I see no reason to refuse bail to the present applicant also. 6 For the aforesaid reasons, Applicant be released on his executing PR of Rs.25,000/- with solvent surety in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall report at the police station on 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. till the end of the trial. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)