Bombay High Court
Amit Surendra Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 December, 2021
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
16. aba 236.20.doc
Ingale
Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
URMILA
PRAMOD
by URMILA
PRAMOD
INGALE
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date:
INGALE 2021.12.04
16:53:30 +0530
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 236 OF 2020
Amit Surendra Singh .. Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
---------------------
Mr.Subodh Desai i/b Mr.Aditya Swant, for applicant.
Mr. N.B. Patil, for the respondent - State.
---------------------
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 4, 2021
P.C.:-
. This Court on 28/01/2020 while granting interim protection
to the applicant passed a detailed order, relevant portion of
which reads thus :
"1. Heard.
2. It is alleged, the applicant kidnapped the complainant with
intention to secretly and wrongfully confne him in order to
recover the dues/amount, which the complainant owed to him.
3. The money transaction between the applicant and the
complainant is evident from a cheque issued by the
complainant to the applicant on 27th November, 2019.
4. It is the complainant' s case that, on 6th January, 2020 at
1/4
16. aba 236.20.doc
1.00 a.m., he was abducted from the car of the applicant,
assaulted and was confned to the parking lot and as a result of
which, fell unconscious. Two hours later, after gaining
consciousness, he was taken on a motorcycle by a stranger
and was dropped at his residence/hotel. On the next day, the
complaint was lodged and was subsequently examined by the
Doctor, who certifed that the complainant had sustained
simple injury.
5. Learned APP submits that, the evidence suggests
complainant was kidnapped in the car of the applicant,
assaulted and was wrongfully confned at the parking lot of the
Society. Submission is, the facts alleged and the evidence on
record prima-facie suggest the commission of an ofence under
Section 365 which is punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years. Learned APP has also
pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant.
6. As against this, the learned Counsel for the applicant
submits, the complaint does not suggest that he was
kidnapped with intention to be secretly and wrongfully
confned and hence the charge of abduction against him is
liable to be set aside. Pursuant to this, reliance was placed on
the judgment of Akbar Ali and Others V.s. King Emperor
reported in 1925 scc Onlin LAH. 286 wherein it is held in
para-2 as under :
" 2. That section makes punishable the ofence of
abduction with intent to cause the person abducted to be
secretly and wrongfully confned. There is no doubt that on
the fndings of the learned Sessions Judge Mt. Siftan was
wrongfully confned, but it is contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that under the circumstances it
could not be held that Mt. Siftan was secretly confned.
2/4
16. aba 236.20.doc
This contention of the learned Counsel, I agree. There is
nothing to show that the whereabouts of Mt. Siftan were
concealed by her brothers and the cousin from the other
relations or from the person interest in Mt. Siftan. The
ofence of the petitioners therefore amounts to one of
wrongful confnement. Accepting the petition I alter the
conviction to one under S.342 and reduce the sentence of
imprisonment to that already undergone."
7. Prima-facie, the case of the complainant that he was
confned at the parking lot, assaulted over there and he fell
unconscious for two hours fnds no corroboration from the
CCTV footage retrieved in the course of the investigation. As
regards to whether the facts alleged amounts to ofence
punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code need
not be gone into at this stage."
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant placed on record
copy of the case-status in respect of the matter which is pending
trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane. Learned Counsel
for the applicant on instructions submits that the charge-sheet
has been fled against the applicant and even the copy of the
case-status produced on record indicates the status as "Awaiting
Summons".
3. Considering the order passed by this Court granting
interim protection to the applicant and now that even charge-
sheet has been fled, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the
3/4
16. aba 236.20.doc
applicant is not necessary. This Court had directed the applicant
to report to the Investigating Ofcer. There is nothing on record
to indicate that the applicant did not report to the Investigating
Ofcer or that he failed to co-operate with the investigation. In
any case, now that the charge-sheet has been fled, interim order
passed by this Court deserves to be confrmed. Hence, the
following order.
ORDER
i) The interim order stands confrmed.
ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection
with C.R. No. I-13 of 2020 registered with Kashimira Police
Station, he shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond
of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
iii) The applicant shall furnish the particulars of his place of
residence and contact details to the Investigating Ofcer
of the Police Station concerned within seven days from
today.
iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or
attempt to infuence or contact the complainant, witnesses
or any person concerned with the case.
4. Application is disposed of.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.)
