Jafar Munna Khan And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3229 OF 2025 Jafar Munna Khan Salman Munna Khan @ Salman Bhai ...Applicants V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3230 OF 2025 Siddhesh Vijay Undale ...Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
Mr. Waqar Nasir Pathan through VC, a/w Adv. Yash A., Advocate for the Applicants.
Ms. A. A. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State. Adv. Bhaskar Jha, through VC a/w Adv. Abhishek Debey, Advocate for first informant.
CORAM
:
N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE :
04.12.2025.
P.C. :
1.
Both these applications are arising out of one and the same crime. They are thus being disposed of by this common order.
2.
The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 320 of 2025 registered at Nallasopara Hill Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 45, 138, 126(2), 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 39 & 45 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.
1/3
3.
It is the case of the prosecution that in March 2025, the complainant was in need of financial assistance. Accordingly, he approached the applicants and other co-accused and borrowed an amount of Rs.9,500/-. However, due to financial difficulties he failed to repay the interest amount. On 27.06.2025 at about 3.30 p.m. the co-accused approached the complainant on a motor cycle and forcibly took him to applicant Jafar's ofifce. It is alleged that the complainant was assaulted with an iron rod and further threatened him with dire consequences if he failed to repay the interest amount. The allegations against the present applicants and other co-accused are of abduction to recover the money borrowed by the first informant from one of the co-accused. 4.
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
5.
The learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that false allegations are made against the applicants with some ulterior motive as to avoid the repayment of the loan amount. It is submitted that the first respondent has already settled the matter with the applicants. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicants are ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation.
6.
On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondentState submits that the applicants are involved in multiple crimes of similar nature. It is submitted that similar allegations are made 2/3
by some of the witnesses against the applicants. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime the applicants may not be released on anticipatory bail.
7.
Considering the nature of offence and as the applicants are involved in multiple crimes of similar nature, I am not inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. The Applications are rejected.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.] 3/3