criap1107.17

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1107 OF 2017

Abhay Umakant Bhangale,

Age: 18 years, Occu: Student,

R/o: Swapnil Building, Plot No. 118,

Gat No. 49, Ganesh Colony,

Jalgaon-425001

..APPLICANT

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra,

Through Jilla Peth Police Station,

Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon

..RESPONDENT

Mrs Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant;

Mr K. N. Lokhande, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent

CORAM : N. W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 8th March, 2017

ORAL ORDER

Heard.

2.

By the present application under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks his release on bail, in connection

with C.R. No.177 of 2016, registered with Jilla Peth police station, Jalgaon,

for offences punishable under Sections 384, 364, 395, 504, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

On 18^th January, 2017, the applicant has withdrawn his earlier

application for grant of pre-arrest bail and the present application for grant

criap1107.17

(2)

of pre-arrest bail is filed in view of following change in circumstances :-

(a)

The main accused Sharad Sapkale is already released by this Court

on bail;

(b)

In the complaint case, being Criminal Misc. Application No.65 of

2017, at the behest of the present applicant, order under section

156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is passed in regard to the

sale deeds bearing registration Nos.2079 of 2016, 2770 of 2016 and

2771 of 2016, which has direct bearing over the offence in question;

and

(c)

Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2017 is instituted against the complainant

by the present applicant for declaration that the aforesaid sale

deeds are not binding and they are void, in which already ex parte

injunction is ordered by the learned 5^th Joint Civil Judge Senior

Division, Jalgaon, in favour of the applicant.

4.

While trying to make out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail, in

addition to the above referred subsequent developments, would urge that

the only role attributed to the present applicant is, that the other co-

accused has carried out execution of the crime in question pursuant to the

instructions of the applicant. She would then invite my attention to the

unexplained delay in lodging the first information report and the likelihood

of false implication of the applicant in the crime in question, in view of the

criap1107.17

(3)

alleged fraud practiced by the complainant on the applicant.

5.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the

ground that there are eye-witnesses to the incident, who have claimed

actual happening of the incident in question. According to him, the

material collected during investigation speaks of prima facie involvement of

the applicant.

6.

It is not in dispute that complaint case, being Criminal Misc.

Application No.65 of 2017 and Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2017 are initiated

at the behest of the applicant against the complainant, in relation to

immovable property. The offence as has been claimed in the first

information report has also background of the dispute in relation to certain

immovable property about which criminal complaint and civil suit, referred

supra are initiated, in which interlocutory orders are already passed.

7.

There are no attributions qua direct involvement of the applicant in

executing the crime in question, but is is claimed that he has acted behind

curtain for execution of the crime in question.

8.

In the above backdrop, false implication of the applicant cannot be

ruled out.

9.

There is also unexplained delay in lodging the first information

report, which is required to be taken note of.

criap1107.17

(4)

10.

The co-accused Sharad Sapkale is alread