Criminal Bail Application rejected. The applicant was charged with kidnapping for ransom and threats. Despite alibi suggestions regarding witness statements, the bail was denied given the serious nature of offences and accused's past record of 13-14 cases.
Bail application rejected; order restraining the accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ba920-12.sxw
1/3
Pvr
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.920 OF 2012
Shri.Rajendra Vasant Ketkar. ...Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ---
Mr.Rahul K.Dhaygude, for Applicant.
Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP for State.
CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 20th July, 2012 P.C. :
Heard the learned Counsel for applicant extensively. The accused-applicant in custody in Crime no.11 of 2012 of Khandala Police Station from 15.1.2012 for the offence under Sections 365, 364, 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC, has urged to release him on bail.
ba920-12.sxw
2/3
Pvr
Kale received said Parihar and while they were moving, the accused -applicant-Rajendra Ketkar was in constant touch with Anil Kale asking their location and in between in a secluded place those persons Anil Kale and Parihar were intercepted, their car was chocked and they were removed from the car. Mr.Parihar was taken in Innova car to a secluded place while Mr.Anil Kale was directed to move in a black coloured car belonging to Raju Ketkar. Mr.Parihar was dealt with severely and he was threatened by putting revolver in his mouth. The person making such threat was identified or informed to be Raju Shah who is none else than the accused-applicant Raju Ketkar. The grudge of the petitioner is, he as Raju Shah was to complete the transaction for Rs.20 crores and then he was to sell the same for Rs.22 crores and he lost his commission and image in the market. The learned Counsel for accused-applicant submits that there is deficiency in the statement of Mr.Anil Kale and that of Mr.Parihar. At one place, Anil Kale says the car was driven by one person, he was forced to sit in the Car and asked not to go to police, otherwise his wife and son will be kidnapped. In the subsequent statement he has improved his statement that he drove the car.
ba920-12.sxw
3/3
Pvr
he was present at the time of interception of the car. The investigation is completed.
The role of the accused-applicant showing revolver, threatening and kidnapping for ransom, is primarily indicated. The deficiencies in the FIR to which the reference was made, will not mitigate the situation warranting to release the accused on bail. The record illustrates that in past there are 13 to 14 cases to the credit of the accused-applicant. The life of Mr.Parihar was made miserable, even he was threatened to ask his wife to withdraw the missing case, as the police Inspector was diligently prosecuting the missing report.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the accused charged with offences under sections 365, 364, 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.
Whether deficiencies in the prosecution witness statements warrant the release of accused on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri.Rajendra Vasant Ketkar
The State of Maharashtra
K.U.CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
