Vishwanath Vitthal Ittenavaru vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6266 Bom

 Shridhar Sutar                               1                               30-ABA-1343.17.doc

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1343 OF 2017

 Vishwanath Vitthal Ittenavru                              ...  Applicant
      Versus
 The State of Maharashtra                                  ... Respondent

                                  .....
 Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate for the Applicant.
 Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the State.
                                  .....


                                CORAM :     T. V. NALAWADE, J.

                                 DATE    : 16th AUGUST, 2017

 P. C. :

1. The present Application is filed for relief of anticipatory bail in

C.R. No. 433 of 2017, registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station,

Solapur, for offences punishable under sections 384 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. Both the sides are heard.

3. The papers of investigation were made available for perusal.

4. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Block

Development Officer (Agriculture). He has made allegations that the

1 of 3

Shridhar Sutar 2 30-ABA-1343.17.doc

present applicant who is Ex-Sarpanch of village Halholi, Tal.

Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur, was blackmailing him by saying that there

were irregularities in sanctioning new borewells and houses under

the Government schemes and the complainant was responsible for

those irregularities. He was threatening to take the matter to various

committees and also to Legislative Assembly of the State. The

applicant had given calls to the complainant on phone to make the

demand. The last demand was made on 22/06/2017 at about 11.50

a.m. The report came to be given on 06/07/2017. It is the

contention of the complainant that his mother was sick and he was

required to remain with his mother for her treatment and, therefore,

the delay is caused.

5. The papers of investigation contain transcript of mobile

conversation which took place on 22/06/2017 between the

complainant and the present applicant. The transcript is consistent

with the aforesaid allegations.

6. The present applicant appears to be the leader of opposition of

the political party in Zilla Parishad, Solapur. It appears that he had

made correspondence through MLAs. But, that was done on

28/06/2016 and 28/07/2016. It can be said that due to some

2 of 3

Shridhar Sutar 3 30-ABA-1343.17.doc

irregularities committed in the implementation of the aforesaid

schemes, action was also taken against the complainant. It is the

contention of the applicant that only due to the steps taken by him

against the complainant, false allegations are made against him.

7. There may be substance in the complaints made by the

applicant that there were irregularities in implementation of

Government schemes and the present complainant is responsible for

those irregularities. That does not mean that allegations of

blackmailing made against the present applicant need not be

believed as there is records of aforesaid nature. The applicant was

blackmailing Government officers by giving threats and he is in

politics and is misusing the position. In view of these circumstances,

this Court holds that the applicant's custodial interrogation is a must.

During custodial interrogation, more information may come out and

that may be against the Government officers who were blackmailed

by the present applicant.

8. In the result, the application stands rejected. Ad-interim relief

granted earlier is vacated.

(T. V. NALAWADE, J.)

3 of 3