Rahul Babanrao Kadam v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

PNP 1/2 ABA732-22.5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.732 OF 2015 Rahul Babanrao Kadam ..Applicant.

versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

.....

Mr. Dhananjayrao Rananaware for the Applicant. Mrs.A.A. Mane, Addl. P.P. for the State.

.....

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.

(VACATION COURT) 22nd May 2015.

P.C. :

This is an Application for anticipatory bail by the Applicant in C.R. No.29 of 2015 under Section 395, 354(A), 323, 427, 452, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Wathar Police Station, District Satara. The complainant Vanita Jitendra Mane has lodged F.I.R. on 1st March, 2015. It is specifically mentioned in the said F.I.R. that on 28th February, 2015 she along with other family members including lady members of her family went to sleep after 11.00 p.m. At about 3.00 a.m. on 1st March, 2015 the door of her house was knocked. Somebody from outside gave a call to "Mr. Mane". The said complainant along with her co-sisters opened the door to see who is knocking it. At that time, she saw the Applicant along with 4-5 other persons in the age group of 30-35.

The Applicant asked the complainant where is her husband and threatened her that he will finish the entire family. At that relevant time, the co-sisters of the complainant came forward, when the Applicant slapped the complainant and one of the unidentified persons outraged the modesty of her co-sister by pulling her blouse.

PNP 2/2 ABA732-22.5 members of the complainant started resisting the attack of the Applicant and the co-accused, the Applicant after putting bolt to the door from outside of the complainant's house ran away. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is a committee member of Zilla Parishad, Satara and there is no need for him to snatch a necklace weighting 3 tolas of gold from the neck of the complainant. He further submits that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant because on earlier occasion the Applicant has registered F.I.R. against the husband of the complainant. The perusal of the F.I.R. clearly discloses the commission of a serious nature of offence for which the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is very much necessary to recover the robbed property. In my opinion, the Applicant does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail and the present Application is dismissed.

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)