1appln-3554-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3554/2010 Madanbhai Jagannath Nayak .. .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. Mr Manoj J. Bhatt, for the Applicant. Mr P. S. Hingorani, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 11TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant, apprehending his arrest, in the matter of C.R.No.I-291/2009 registered with Naupada Police Station, Thane for the offence punishable under Sections 420,406, 2appln-3554-10 384, 506 (ii) 504 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and also punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2. According to the F.I.R., which was filed by the end of June, 2009, initially, sometime in November, 2006, he purchased a Honda City Car on the loan obtained from the ICICI Bank. Registration Certificate was obtained in the name of the complainant. By December, 2008 the loan instalments could not be paid and as such there were demands from the ICICI Bank for the repayment of the loan. It appears that the present applicant approached the complainant and made him aware that he will get clear the bank loan transaction and for that purpose he will require to pay Rs.1 lakh. As such, the complainant paid him Rs.1 lakh by cash. 3. After a week's time, on or about 28th December, 2008, a meeting was arranged, where Officers of ICICI Bank, present applicant and present first informant met in the office of the applicant. In the said meeting, it was decided that the said vehicle is to be given in the custody of the present applicant and he will return back earlier received amount of Rs.1 lakh and he will clear all the loan instalments payable to ICICI Bank. In the said meeting T.T.forms were signed by the complainant and were given to the present applicant so that the car 3appln-3554-10 can be validly transferred in the name of the applicant with R.T.O.Authorities. 4. It appears that, subsequently, by February, 2009 again ICICI Bank Officers approached the complainant and informed that the loan is not cleared. As such, again, Officers from ICICI Bank and the present complainant approached the applicant at his office. This time, the applicant was hostile in his attitude and in fact gave threats and tried to assault the complainant. He did not give back possession of the car to the complainant. 5. Thereafter, some time in March, 2009 the complainant again approached the applicant at his office. This time, also, the applicant behaved in more rude manner and took out his revolver and pointed towards the complainant and gave him threats of dire consequences. Again, the request for getting back the car was not obeyed. Sometime by the end of June, 2009 present complainant received a summons from Kalwa police mentioning that the car, still in his name as per the R.T.O. record, was seized by the police in some other matter for the offences punishable under section 307 and allied offences. 6. Admittedly, in the said another offence, present applicant 4appln-3554-10 was arrested and reportedly released on bail by the concerned Court. 7. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that it is a civil transaction for giving an assurance of repayment of the loan and paying the full consideration either to honour the Bank or to the original owner -complainant, but allegedly not obeying the word and as such a civil remedy can be sought. 8. In the present matter, after ascertaining the prima facie factual position, as detailed in the F.I.R., considering the allegations against the present applicant and considering that the vehicle, till it was seized by Kalwa police, was not given back in the custody of the original complainant, it can be said that even the complainant can have a recourse through the criminal proceedings, as has been done in the present matter. 9. In view of the above, and considering the factual position, it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Though, during the pendency of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, he was protected from arrest. Such interim protection came to an end after dismissal of his application by II Additional Sessions Judge, Thane vide order dated 29.7.2010. In the result, the following order:- 5appln-3554-10 :ORDER: (a) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3554/2010 hereby is rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. Application is disposed of in above terms. (A.R.JOSHI,J)