Anand Chandrakant Sanas v. The State of Maharashtra

All the applicants have been named in the FIR. Applicant no.1 is son of applicant no.2 and applicant no.3 is the wife of applicant no.1. The [-2-] complainant Kantilal has stated that he took loan of Rs.10 lakhs from applicant no.1. Against the said amount, the applicant no.1 took blank stamp papers of Rs.100/- and also took blank signed cheques of ICICI Bank. The interest rate was fixed at 10%. Thereafter the applicant no.1 in order to get more money, used to give threats of extortion to the complainant.

The complainant has stated that on 16.1.2008 when he had gone to the house of his cousin brother, wife of the complainant telephoned him and informed him that applicant no.1 and his goons have entered into the house and were manhandling them. Immediately the complainant reached home. At that time, one of the goons named George told the complainant that if he cannot pay interest amount, he should transfer his land in the name of the applicant no.1. George threatened the complainant that if the land was not transferred, he would kill both the sons of the complainant. Then George took the complainant, forcibly put him into a Scorpio jeep and took him to Shriram Lodge at night. George had threatened the complainant not to shout, hence, the complainant kept quiet. When they [-3-] reached Shriram Lodge, all the applicants were present. Applicant nos.1 and 2 asked complainant whether he had made arrangements for money and if not, he should transfer the land in the names of the applicant nos.1 and 2. Applicant no.1 informed the complainant that they had custody of his nephew Pankaj and if on the next date, the land was not transferred, his family members would be killed. Due to threats, the complainant was kept quiet. All throughout night, the complainant was kept confined in the room in Shriram Lodge. On

17.1.2008 in the morning, all the three applicants took wife, father and nephew of the complainant after giving them threats that they would be shot dead. They were taken to the office of Sub-Registrar Indapur and applicant no.1 got transferred in his name the land standing in the name of father of the complainant. Applicant no.2 got transferred in his name the land standing in the name of the wife of the complainant. Thereafter, the goons released the complainant and others. It is also the case of the complainant that two cars belonging to the complainant, were also taken away by the applicants. [-4-]

The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that though the incident had taken place on 17.1.2008, the complaint had been lodged on

7.4.2008. This shows that the applicants have been falsely implicated. The learned APP has pointed out that on 25.1.2008 itself the complainant had made a complaint to the police station, however, it was not registered. Then again on 1.2.2008, complaint was made, however, it was not registered. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, Pune (Rural) and thereafter, the FIR came to be lodged. From these facts, it is seen that though the complainant went to police station to lodge his FIR, the same was not registered. Moreover, in the FIR, the complainant has stated that due to fear to his life, he did not immediately lodge the complaint. It is seen that on 28.1.2008 the complainant had also made an application to the Talathi office Indapur for not replacing their names in the land record. Thus, prima facie, I find that there is reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR.

The learned advocate for the applicants [-5-] submitted that co-accused has been granted bail. It is well settled that considerations for bail and anticipatory bail are entirely different. The State Vs. Anil Sharma Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Anil Sharma State Vs. Anil Sharma reported in 1997 S.C.C. (Cri.) 1039, has observed reported in 1997 S.C.C. (Cri.) 1039, reported in 1997 S.C.C. (Cri.) 1039, that the considerations for bail and anticipatory bail are quite different, hence, the fact that co-accused was granted bail, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Moreover, it is seen that the applicants have played the main role. The material on record clearly implicates the applicants, hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Application is rejected.

Applicants are granted time till 29.8.2008 to surrender. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]