903.2890.21 aba.doc

ISM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2890 OF 2021

BINU NINAN VARGHESE

….APPLICANT

V/s.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

…..RESPONDENT

Mr. Raja Rajan Bhura a/w Abhishek Jha i/b Tap Legal for the

applicant

Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar APP for the State

CORAM :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE:

DECEMBER 3, 2021.

P.C.:

1]

Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in C.R. No. 230/2021

registered with Naupada Police Station for Offences punishable under

Sections 384, 385 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. extortion and

attempt to put in fear of injury in order to commit said offence.

2]

Applicant claims to be a social worker and Right to Information

(R.T.I.) activist. It is claimed that applicant has issued threats, sought

money from the complainant so as to cover up alleged illegal

1/5

903.2890.21 aba.doc

decisions/constructions going on within the jurisdiction of Thane

Municipal Corporation.

3]

Submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are,

considering social background, unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R.,

friendly terms of applicant and complainant, demand of friendly loan

by the applicant entitle him to be released on bail. It is further

claimed that co-accused is already protected by the order of the Trial

Court thereby extending protection for limited period.

4]

Learned APP submits that applicant’s prima facie involvement

in the crime can be inferred from the investigation carried out. It is

claimed that custodial interrogation is very much required in the

light of material collected during investigation.

5]

Considered submissions.

6]

Contentions of applicant are, demand of friendly loan, as

complainant and applicant know each other since last more than 15

2/5

903.2890.21 aba.doc

years. It is claimed that same was misunderstood by complainant as

extortion.

7]

If the aforesaid contentions of the applicant are appreciated, it

is claimed that he is in friendly terms with complainant, a public

servant since last 15 years. His 昀椀nancial dif昀椀culty has prompted him

to ask for hand loan. The fact that he has asked for a handloan from

complainant and he being a social worker and also R.T.I. activist has

sought information through various persons is not a fact under

dispute at this stage. In the aforesaid background, the claim put

forth in the F.I.R. that of extortion and attempt to put fear of injury in

order to commit the said offence of extortion can be inferred from the

very conduct of applicant noticed in investigation papers.

8]

Provisions of Right to Information Act are misused so as to

blackmail or extort the money from public servant can be ntoiced

from the investigation papers.

9]

The claim of the applicant that he is whistle blower and has

3/5

903.2890.21 aba.doc

exposed illegal construction and activities carried in Thane Municipal

Corporation area by various builders, public servant and as such he

is falsely implicated in the crime is also liable to be rejected. The fact

that applicant has sought information under the R.T.I. through

certain front men primarily demonstrates his intentions not to get

exposed. Investigation carried out till date depicts aforesaid conduct

of the applicant which prima facie demonstrates his involvement in a

cognizable and non-bailable offence. Applicant has already received

part of extortion money.

10]

Other accused persons who are claimed to be released in the

present offence cannot be treated at par with present applicant in the

background of speci昀椀c role attributed to the applicant.

11]

It is though claimed that there is delay in lodging F.I.R. which is

required to be considered in the interest of the applicant for grant of

bail for which support is drawn from the Judgment in the matter of

Shriram Satwaji Jadhav V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others

[Criminal Writ Petition No. 325/2003]. However, this Court is

4/