1 CA4773/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4773 OF 2011 Santosh s/o Chabildas Chaudhari Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Shri P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for the applicant Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for the respondent / State Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate, holding for Shri P.P. Chavan, Advocate, to Assist APP CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 15th November, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates for both sides. 2. The complaint is filed by one Mr. Chandrashekhar Attarde on 29th July, 2011. According to the complainant, he and his brother-in-law Mr. Ulhas Patil had purchased a plot of land for a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/- and wanted to develop the same. The complainant had submitted papers to the officer of Bhusaval Municipal Council for sanction of layout on 16th April, 2011. Mr. Jakir Shaikh, officer of the Bhusaval Municipal Council informed him that the file concerning the complainant is lying at the bunglow of the present applicant and that the complainant should see the present applicant. He was also informed that unless the present applicant grants the permission, the file would not move for sanction and layout cannot be sanctioned. Thereafter, the complainant is alleged to have visited the present applicant at Ajintha Rest House where the present applicant is said to have put terms 2 CA4773/11 to the complainant, viz; to pay a sum of Rs.1 Crore or offer 25% of the land to the present applicant. Thereafter, the First Information Report came to be registered and accordingly trap was arranged. The pre-trap panchnama was conducted on 29th July, 2011 and the amount was agreed to be paid to one Mr. Bablu @ Balkrishna. According to the complainant, one installment of Rs. 10 Lacs was paid prior to laying down the trap. In the second installment, an amount of Rs.15 Lacs was to be paid. The trap was successfully laid and said Bablu @ Balkirshna was found in possession of cash of Rs.15,00,000/- and odd, being the second installment. 3. The prosecution has filed charge-sheet against the present applicant, Bablu @ Balkrishna, Suleman, Ramdas, Sk. Jakir and Mohansing (Jakir and Mohansing are absconding). It is common ground that Bablu @ Balkrishna, Suleman and Ramdas have been released on bail. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant contended that on the principle of parity, the present applicant is entitled for bail. He also submitted that the wife of present applicant is the President of Bhusaval Municipal Council and Ulhas Patil, who claims to be brother-in-law of Chandrashekhar (complainant), is also a man in the political field. According to the applicant, the present F.I.R. has been filed solely to involve him in a false case and to see that he is detained in the custody so that he would not be able to participate in the election campaign for the ensuing elections. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, bogus complaint is filed against the present applicant and therefore the applicant is entitled for bail. 5. I have perused the text of the F.I.R. After arrest of Bablu, he has 3 CA4773/11 rendered statement, which shows that he was working for the present applicant. In this context, recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- at the time of trap from Bablu @ Balkrishna is very much material and to that extent, the allegations of trap which are appearing in the charge-sheet, go against the present applicant and establish a link between him and Bablu. 6. It was contended by the learned A.P.P. for the respondent / State that as many as 55 files were found to be lying at the house of present applicant in connection with the affairs of the Bhusaval Municipal Council. According to him, this fact is against the interest of the applicant in as much as the case of the prosecution is that unless the applicant clears the files to his satisfaction, the said file would not processed further. According to the present applicant, his wife resides with him and she is President of Bhusaval Municipal Council and hence files are lying at his house. It is difficult to accept that all these files were lying in his house for being attended to by his wife, who is President of the Bhusaval Municipal Council. Presence of as many as 55 files in the house of applicant is something unusual and is a pointer towards the conduct of the present applicant. This is so, because the co-accused Jakir Shaikh had already warned the complainant on 16th April, 2011 that unless the file is cleared by the present applicant, the job of the present complainant will not be successful. 7. Having considered the record in the light of the aforesaid observations, the stand of the present applicant that the F.I.R. dated 29th July, 2011 is filed solely to implicate him falsely on account of political rivalry, cannot be accepted. The link between the present applicant and Bablu @ Balkrishna has been thus established, ofcourse prima facie. The recovery of 4 CA4773/11 Rs.15,00,000/- from Bablu, who is a man of ordinary life, is indicative of the fact that the said amount was received by Bablu ultimately for the benefit of the present applicant. 8. The allegations against the present applicant are ofcourse of a serious nature. It was sought to be contended that the case is triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusaval. In my view, even if the case is triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusaval, that does not mean that the present applicant would be entitled to the bail, as, ofcourse. The allegations against the present applicant are of serious nature. It is also indicative of the fact that the present applicant is trying to interfere in the smooth administration of the Bhusaval Municipal Council and is controlling matters in terms of money. The present applicant is the kingpin and that the various witnesses who have rendered statement to police are likely to be pressurized if the applicant is released on bail, and as such, the present applicant is not entitled for bail. Hence, the application stands rejected. 9. It is clarified that observations made in this order shall not be considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusaval at the time of trial. 10. In view of disposal of present application, Criminal Application No. 4861 of 2011 stands disposed of. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) Again called out at the request of learned Advocate Mr. Paranjape. It 5 CA4773/11 is to be noted that in the morning this application was heard on merits and this application was rejected. Today at about 4.30 p.m. when the Court was about to rise, learned Advocate Mr. Paranjape submitted that he has been requested by learned instructing advocate to make prayer to this Court that said application be treated as withdrawn. I have applied my mind and I am not inclined to accept request on the ground that the bail application was heard on merits and has been rejected by passing speaking order. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/ca/4773/11/15/11/11