Bombay High Court
Rupesh Nathu Taware vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
8-BA-1904-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1904 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 645 OF 2022
Rupesh Nathu Taware ...Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
....
Mr. Pranav Pokale a/w Mr. Tanmay S. Karwa a/w Mr. Aditya Bagal,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
....
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 20th OCTOBER, 2022.
PER COURT:
1. This is an application for bail in C.R. No.355 of 2013
registered with Dattawadi Police Station, Dist. Pune for offences
punishable under Sections 363 364-A, 341, 385 r/w Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was
interested in selling his landed property. The accused had
suggested a purchaser and represented that the sale would be
completed through him, thereafter, he was not in contact with the
complainant for a period of about 2 years. On 27.11.2013, the
complainant received a phone call from the accused and it was
Digitally signed
by SAJAKALI
informed by him that he has a purchaser for his land and he was
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
JAMADAR
LIYAKAT Date:
JAMADAR 2022.10.21
20:27:39
+0530 Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 5
8-BA-1904-2021.doc
called at Dhayari Phata. On 28.11.2013, the complainant informed
his wife about the phone call and left the house on his motorcycle.
He reached Dhayari Phata. He met the accused. He was made to
sit on two wheeler, thereafter four other persons came there. The
complainant left his two wheeler at the spot and proceeded on the
motorcycle of the accused. He was taken to room situated near
Dagadi Khan. The applicant/accused was present at the spot and
seven other persons were also present. The complainant inquired
about the purchaser for his property. The accused demanded
Rs. 10 Lakhs by way of extortion from him. The complainant
expressed his inability to part with such huge amount. The accused
then reduced the amount to Rs.5 Lakhs and subsequently to Rs. 2
lakhs. The complainant gave phone call to his wife. The accused
threatened him. Revolver had pointed out at him and he was
forced to tell his family that they should arrange the amount of
Rs. 2 Lakhs for payment to the accused. Subsequently, the family
members of the accused made arrangement of Rs.2 Lakhs and it
was parted to the accused. Pursuant to that the victim was
released from the accused. The First Information Report (for short
'FIR') was registered.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted as follows :-
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 5
8-BA-1904-2021.doc
i. The applicant is in custody from 24.12.2013. There is
no progress in trial.
ii. There is delay in lodging FIR. Although the alleged
incident had occurred on 28.11.2013, the FIR was registered
on 21.12.2013.
iii. There is no recovery of the amount from the applicant.
The applicant was in custody in connection with C.R. No.297
of 2013 and the case has resulted in acquittal vide judgment
and order dated 24.12.2021. Reliance is placed on the
photocopy of the judgment.
4. Learned APP submitted that the applicant is the main
accused. Overt act has been attributed to the applicant. The victim
was abducted. He was threatened. The accused were armed with
pistols and to threaten the victim there was firing on the ground.
The amount of Rs.2 Lakhs is extorted. The applicant was in
custody in another case and it is not that in the present case he is in
custody from 2013. He was arrested in this case for issuance of
production warrant. The offence is of serious nature. Hence, bail
be may not be granted to the applicant.
5. It is pertinent to note that the incident in question had
occurred on 28.11.2013. The FIR however registered on
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 5
8-BA-1904-2021.doc
21.12.2013. The explanation given in the FIR is that, due to fear
he did not lodge FIR. However, the applicant and his associates
were arrested by the police and therefore he had approached the
police for lodging complaint. The trial has not commenced,
although the applicant is in custody for a period of about 9 years.
It is true that he was also arrested in C.R. No.297 of 2013 and was
in custody as undertrial prisoner and the said case has resulted in
acquittal vide judgment and order dated 24.12.2021. Facts still
remains that the applicant is arrested on 24.12.2013 & there is no
progress in the trial, bail can be granted to the applicant.
6. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i. Criminal Bail Application No. 1904 of 2021 is allowed;
ii. The applicant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No.355 of 2013 registered with
Dattawadi Police Station, Dist. Pune on executing P.R. Bond
in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the
like amount;
iii. The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of eight weeks in lieu of
surety.
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 5
8-BA-1904-2021.doc
iv. The applicant shall report concerned Police Station
once in three months on first Saturday of the month between
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till further order;
v. Bail Application No.1904 of 2021 and Interim
Application No.645 of 2022 are disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 5 of 5
