Santosh Ramesh Sananse v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 36 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1215 OF 2021 SANTOSH RAMESH SANANSE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Shri. G. K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the applicant Shri. S. W. Munde, APP for the respondent/State CORAM : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.

DATED : 15th NOVEMBER, 2021 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard.

2.

Applicant, at the time of the incident was a tenant of the informant. Informant has a son aged five years six months. The informant on 12th April, 2021 at 7.00 a.m. went to the school. At 8.00 a.m. her husband called her up informing her that her son by the name of Shourya was not being seen. At that time she noticed that there were four missed calls from mobile number 7058165968. When she called back, the person who answered the call told her that he had kidnapped Shourya and Shourya would be released on paying ransom of Rs. 20 lakhs. He had also threatened

her that he was a member of gang and if informant approached the police station, she would face dire consequences. Thereafter, she approached the Police Station MIDC Waluj. The kidnapper i.e. the applicant had asked the informant to wait for his man at Hitech and amount of Rs. 20 lakhs should be handed over to the person deputed by the applicant. She received a call from the applicant and police traced the location of the applicant and arrested him. On these allegations FIR was lodged and offence came to be registered against the applicant under Sections 364(A), 386, 388 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned counsel Shri. Kshirsagar submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. This is his first offence. He submits that charge-sheet is filed and therefore, further detention of the applicant is not necessary. 4.

Admittedly, the applicant was the tenant of the informant. The applicant was the tenant six months since before the incident. Naturally Shourya must have been

acquainted with the applicant. The applicant abused his position and kidnapped child Shourya. Applicant was apprehended when he was in conversation with the informant after his location was traced by the investigating authority. Offence is serious in nature. He had demanded ransom of Rs. 20 lakhs. He had threatened the informant that if amount was not paid he would cause injury to Shourya or cause his death. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the fact that offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. There is prima facie case against the applicant. Hence the order.

ORDER

.

Application is rejected.

[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.] ssp