2012appln1865.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1865 OF 2010. Amol Madhukarrao Fartode and anr. ..vs.. The State of Mah. through Rly.P.S.Akola. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.S.V.Sirpurkr, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.M.J.Khan, APP for the State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 20 th December, 2010. Heard Mr.Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. By the present application, the applicants are seeking their pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest in Crime No.66 of 2010, registered at Railway Police Station, Akola. Mr.Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicants, by inviting my attention to the report placed on record submits that the report is nothing but outcome of a civil transaction between the parties and the complainant to settle score using a report as a tool. By inviting my attention to the report, Mr.Sirpurkar submits that as alleged by the complainant the incident of abduction of the complainant took place at Railway station at 9.30 in the morning. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the next portion of the report wherein it is stated by the complainant that on next day i.e. on 6/11/2010 the complainant along with the applicants had 2012appln1865.10.odt 2 been to a Restaurant. The applicants tried to give alcohol to the complainant by using force. It is further stated in the report that the complainant was not in a position to speak and therefore he took rest for two days and the report is lodged on next day i.e. 7/11/2010. Mr.Sirpurkar, learned counsel, submits that the case as alleged by the complainant raises suspicion and the applicants deserve to be protected at the hands of this court. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the application and submitted that the offence committed by the applicants is serious. He further submits that the statement of one witness is recorded by the Investigating Agency and in view of the material collected by the Investigating Agency, the applicants are not deserved for protection at the hands of this court. Perused the material collected by the Investigating Agency. At the outset, as alleged by the complainant, the incident took place at Railway Station in the morning at 9.30. It is very difficult to believe that at such a crowdy location like Railway Station that too in the morning hours if such sort of incident takes place, nobody will witness to such serious incident where not only the public but also the staff of the Railway department are available. Even the statement of the one witness recorded by the Investigating Agency discloses that in the evening on 6/11/2010 he had been to one Restaurant where he found that the complainant was in the company of the applicants. They gave him threats and in his presence the complainant was subjected to assault. The complainant himself has stated in the report that he was brought to one Restaurant by the applicants. It is difficult to believe that the complainant was brought at a public place 2012appln1865.10.odt 3 and having an opportunity either to raise alarm or to get released from the clutches of the applicants, he has not made any attempt. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that the prima facie case is made out. Therefore, the interim protection granted by this court is confirmed with condition that the applicants to attend the concerned Police station on every Sunday between 9 and 10 a.m. for three months or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. JUDGE chute