15crn1566-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1566 OF 2010 Jivan @ Jiva Rama Gaikwad & Santosh Baban Ghanvat. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Rohan Surve, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for regular bail preferred by both the applicants who are original accused Nos.2 & 3. 2. The allegations against the present applicants are that 15crn1566-10 2 they took part in abduction of husband of the first informant and keeping him in secluded place and asking for ransom of Rs.1,50,000/- from him. It is alleged that on 25th March, 2009 as usual in the morning the victim left his home for job and in the evening he did not return as usual. His wife (first informant) waited at the house and only could receive a telephone call from her husband - victim at early hours of the night between 25th & 26th i.e. at about 1:00 a.m. she received a telephone call during which the victim was calling her in Hindi though it was practice of the conversation with each other in Tamil language. This factual position narrated by the complainant has some significance so far as the allegations against the present applicants and their associates are concerned. Over the telephone said victim asked for HSBC bank code numbers so as to allow him to withdraw certain amounts at that early hours. Apparently, there was no any further explanation given by the victim and taking panickey the complainant/wife acted as per his instructions 15crn1566-10 3 and gave him the bank numbers. 3. Thereafter another code numbers of the bank were narrated by her to her husband at about 3:00 a.m. or so. Both the times, the victim was talking to her in Hindi. Thereafter, the complainant was informed by her husband that their one neighbour will come to her place on the next day morning and she has to do as to what he would tell. She was also told that certain miscreants have abducted him and they are asking for Rs.1,50,000/- as ransom to set him at liberty. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that a trap was led at the house of the complainant on 27th March, 2009 in which accused No.1 walked, apparently for taking ransom amount from the complainant. During that trap accused No.1 was accosted by the police and he was apprehended. Then during the investigation, the names of the present applicants (accused Nos.2 & 3) were revealed. They were put under arrest on 2nd April, 2009 and on 4th April, 2009 at the 15crn1566-10 4 instance of applicant No.1 there was recovery of 2 ATM cards belonging to the victim from the house of applicant No.1. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, at his instance on 3rd April, 2009 there was a recovery of one black coloured bag again containing certain bank cards belonging to the victim. During the said recovery, there was one dummy pistol found which was taken charge of by the police. This apparently happened on 3rd April, 2009 at the rented house given to the said applicant No.2. According to the police on that day his wife was at home. 5. During the arguments, the learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that there is a statement of the owner of that room, recorded on 3rd April, 2009 wherein according to him on 31st March, 2009 on knowing the incident as to applicant No.2 to whom the said room was given on certain deposit and rent for three months, had kept one person in captivity for getting the ransom amount. On knowing this, said room owner had attended the said place on 31.3.2009 15crn1566-10 5 and saw that there was nothing in the room as to any person kept in captivity and, thereafter, he put another lock on the said room and went away. By pointing out contents of this statement, it is argued that how under such circumstances there could have been a recovery from the same room as alleged by the police and that also on 3rd April, 2009. At this juncture what is before the Court is to grant of bail or otherwise to the applicant considering material available against them. The pros and cons of every material produced during the investigation cannot be tested at the time of bail and it would be the question to be decided as to which part of the evidence is required to be accepted when the matter will be put to the trial. 6. All the same, there is recovery at the instance of both the applicants and considering the manner in which the incident had taken place and considering that there was a test identification parade held though much is argued regarding the authenticity of the procedure of the test identification 15crn1566-10 6 parade, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to release the present applicants on bail when the chargesheet is over and even matter is required to be tried. Hence the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.1566 of 2010 for regular bail is rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)