Rajkumar S/O. Ghasiram v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 Cr. Appln. 1919-2016+

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1919 OF 2016 Rajkumar S/o Ghasiram .. Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1920 OF 2016 Rajkumar S/o Shasiram .. Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents ---- Mr. N.E. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant in both applications Mr. A.R. Borulkar, A.P.P. for the respondent-State ---- CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 15/04/2016 ORAL ORDER :

Heard both sides.

2.

The present applicant, who is apprehending arrest in two crimes i.e. crime no. 96 of 2015 and 98 of 2015 registered at Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences punishable under section 392, 212, 109 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal

2 Cr. Appln. 1919-2016+ Code, is praying for his release on bail, in the event of his arrest.

3.

Reading of the FIR in both the crimes would show that at different times and places, some motorcyclists on a road, had snatched the gold necklace of the women proceeding by road and fled away. 4.

During the course of investigation, some accused were arrested and recovery of articles is made on the interrogation of those co-accused. The name of the present applicant is disclosed and, therefore, the Investigating Officer wants to interrogate the present applicant and make further investigation.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in-fact, recovery of the articles is made at the behest of some accused and merely on the statement of certain co-accused, the applicant is sought to be arrested. He therefore submits that custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not required.

6.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that the registration those two crimes would show that the crimes of chain snatching in the broad day light are

3 Cr. Appln. 1919-2016+ increasing.

Unless and until the custodial interrogation is made, there would be no proper investigation qua the present applicant.

7.

Upon hearing both sides, in my view, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required.

8.

In the circumstances, both the Applications are hereby dismissed.

Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE arp/