922aba554-22.odt

1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.554 OF 2022

SHAIKH ARBAZ SHAIKH MEHBOOB VS STATE OF MHA. THR. PSO PS CHANDRAPUR

CITY DIST.CHANDRAPUR

_______________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions

Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Shri A.C. Jaltare, Advocate for applicant

Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, for the State / Non-applicant

CORAM : A NIL S. KILOR

, J.

DATED : 11^th AUGUST, 2022.

1.

The applicant has approached to this Court by filing the

present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime

No.359 of 2022 dated 30.06.2022, registered with Police Station :

Chandrapur City, for the offences punishable under Sections 384,

385, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that no FIR

was lodged in relation to the first incident dated 27.06.2022 when

the complainant had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused persons,

whereas, the complaint was lodged on 30.06.2022 after accused

No.1 demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. He therefore,

submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged

offence.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, from the

contents of the FIR, particularly, the fact that, the complainant paid

922aba554-22.odt

2/4

Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused persons, sufficiently shows that the

complainant was doing something illegal and for not to disclose the

same to the police, he paid Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned counsel for

the applicant submits that the above referred fact, creates doubt

about veracity of the complaint and accordingly, he prays for grant

of pre-arrest bail.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, whether

giving a threat can be considered as injury, is the question and

therefore, whether Sections 384 and 385 of the IPC will attract in

this case, is to be examined.

5.

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that

even Section 452 of the IPC will not attract as from the allegations

it can be seen that there is no allegation showing pre-requisites of

definition of ‘Injury’ given under Section 44 of the IPC.

Accordingly, he submits that no offence would attract in this case

against the applicant, as alleged.

6.

On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposes the

application and submits that the allegations are about extortion, and

the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient incriminating

material against the applicant.

7.

It is submitted that the CCTV footages, are collected and

which are sufficient to show that on the date of incident, all the

accused persons were found together near the spot of incident.

8.

It is submitted that in this case, custodial interrogation of the

applicant is necessary for identification parade and also to recover

922aba554-22.odt

3/4

the amount. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the present

application.

9.

I have perused the Case Diary and the First Information

Report (FIR).

10.

From the case diary, it can be seen that the Investigating

Officer has collected the CCTV footages from the back side of the

police station and the jewellery shop, from which it can be seen that

on the date of the incident and time, all the accused persons were

found together near the spot of occurrence.

11.

Moreover, the statements of the witnesses are recorded by the

Investigating Officer during the investigation supports the

prosecution story. Thus, prima facie sufficient incriminating

material is there against the applicant.

12.

As far as the submission of the learn