1 MHNS010051282022 Order below Exh. 1 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1194/2022.
1.This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in C.R.No. I140/2022 registered against applicant Ashok Damodar Bagul at Mumbai Naka Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 379 and 411 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.In short, the case of the prosecution is that, complainant was coming from Vapi, Gujarat to Nashik when she reached Nashik at 5.30 p.m. at Dwarka Circle and was going to Pathardi Phata to her sisters house. She was carrying one black travel bag and one white colour bag.
Prior to sitting in the rickshaw the rickshaw driver took both the bag in his possession and kept the big bag on the lap of lady passenger who was sitting from earlier and kept the white bag with himself. The rickshaw driver did not leave the complainant at Pathardi Phata but left her at Rane Nagar Tunnel and made her sit in the rickshaw which was coming from behind. When she came home she did not find goldensilver ornaments and money. Hence, this complaint.
3.The applicant sought prearrest bail on the ground that he has been falsely implicated. He has no concern with the offence. FIR reflects that there were three ladies and one male. Offence u/s. 411 which is added later on is not justifiable as it does not attract the ingredients. He does not recognize the accused. Applicant is honest jeweler in Malegaon since 2025 years and he is well known there. There are no criminal antecedents against him. Coaccused are released on bail. Nothing has to be recovered. He has received notice u/s. 41(a) of Cr.P.C. It is not practical to consider that complainant got the ornaments for breaking as there are many jewelers at Vapi also. Number of customer visit his shop and he gives them valid bill. He is ready to cooperate the investigation and abide by the terms and conditions. Hence, prayed that application be allowed.
4.Say was called of the Investigating Officer. He has objected this application on the count that as on date the entire muddemal is not seized. It also transpired in the investigation that applicant has purchased certain ornaments even after having knowledge that they are stolen property. Coaccused have told that present applicant is purchases stolen gold. CDR of the accused mobile reflects that lady accused has called the applicant which reflect that she has visited the shop of accused to sell the gold. Applicant has failed to remain present after service of notice u/s. 41 of Cr.P.C. which reflects that he is not cooperated the investigation.
Remaining muddemal has to be seized for which custody of accused is essential. It is also seen that prior also lady accused went to the shop of applicant to sell stolen gold. Hence, prayed that application rejected.
5.Heard Argument of Ld. Advocate for the accused and Ld. APP for the State. Much argument was made by the Advocate for the accused that accused has been falsely implicated as well as the FIR is not readable as nobody will carry gold to break from Vapi to Nashik. Shop of the accused is closed since 10 days. Hence, prayed that bail be granted.
6.Investigating officer has contended that recovery has to be made from the applicant who is the purchaser of stolen property. It is also seen that call record of the applicant reflects that coaccused has called him. I.O. also states that the lady accused prior sold gold ornaments to the applicant. Recovery of the part of the muddemal has to be made from the applicant. Detail interrogation is necessary. Nothing has been brought to reflect that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. Thus, considering the nature of allegations, primafacie case is not made out by applicant for grant of prearrest bail. Hence, I pass the following order :
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
Digitally signed by VAISHALI S VAISHALI S MALKALPATTEREDDY MALKALPATTEREDDY Date: 2022.10.06
11:30:52 +0530 Nashik. (V.S.MalkalpatteReddy) Date : 04/10/2022. Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.