Bombay High Court
Ajhar Manjoor Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 October, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat, R. M. Joshi
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3173 OF 2022
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 311 OF 2021
Ajhar Manjoor Shaikh,
Age : Major, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Fakirgalli,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Tophkhana Police Station,
Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondent
Mr. V. S. Tanwade, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. R. B. Bagul, APP for the respondent/State
Mr. N. B. Narwade, Assist to PP.
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT &
R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATEED : 17th OCTOBER, 2022
PER COURT:-
1. By this application, applicant/convict Ajhar Manjoor
Shaikh is seeking suspension of substantial sentence of life
imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 364-A of
the Indian Penal Code imposed by Sessions Judge,
Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2020 by judgment
dated 22nd April, 2021 and enlargement on bail during the
pendency of appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
evidence of victim is doubtful as he has not intimated about
his alleged abduction for extortion though he had numerous
occasions to disclose about the same to family members,
police, S.P. etc. It is submitted that owing to dispute between
victim and present applicant he is falsely implicated in this
crime. He drew attention of the Court to the said evidence on
record in order to submit that on the basis of the same
applicant ought not to have been convicted by the learned Trial
Court. He also submitted that there is no recovery of any
weapon and therefore, the offence punishable under Section
364-A of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted.
3. Learned APP opposed the said contention with the
submission that there is no reason for disbelieving the
testimony of victim and that not only his evidence is
unshattered but also there is evidence of identification of the
co-accused in the identification parade as well as before the
Trial Court. Thus, according to him considering seriousness of
offence it is not the fit case for enlargement of the applicant on
bail by suspending substantive sentence.
4. This Court has prima facie considered the material
on record which disclosed that victim was taken forcibly in
vehicle by 5.30 a.m. on 18th November, 2019 from
Ahmednagar to Aurangabad and Jalna. Evidence of victim
given entire account of events is found reliable by learned Trial
Court as nothing is elicited from the cross-examination to
suggest about false implication by him of present applicant in
this crime. There is evidence of Tanveer Shaikh (PW-4), who at
the relevant time in front of Masjid has heard commotion and
found one person shouting in the white colour car. Thus, there
is support to the testimony of the victim about his contention
about his abduction.
5. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the
applicant for about non recovery of weapon is concerned, use
of weapon is not sine quanon for proving offence punishable
under Section 364-A of the IPC. The act of the applicant and
co-accused of forcibly taking victim from Ahmednagar to
Aurangabad and Jalna with evidence of the victim about they
demanding money from him is sufficient conduct giving rise to
reasonable apprehension that victim may be put to death or
hurt in order to compel him to pay ransom.
6. It is clarified that observations made herein are
prima facie consideration of case. In the above said discussion,
no case is made out by the applicant for suspension of
sentence. Hence, application is rejected.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) (R. G. AVACHAT, J.)
SSP/cra3173
