{"id":252613,"date":"2009-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-12T05:14:19","modified_gmt":"2015-05-11T23:44:19","slug":"police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                           BOMBAY\n\n                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2786           OF 2009.\n\n\n     Manoj Prabhakar Lohar,\n     of District Thane, Indian\n\n\n\n\n                        \n     Inhabitant and was posted as\n     Addl. Superintendent of\n             \n     Police, Chalisgaon, Dist.\n     Jalgaon.                     ... Applicant.\n            \n      \n\n                           Versus\n   \n\n\n\n     The State of Maharashtra          ... Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                ...\n\n     Mr.R.M.Agrawal, Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, and\n     Mr.S.A.Vaidya, advocates for the applicant.\n     Mr.N.B.Khandare, Public Prosecutor assisted by\n     Mr.R.B.Raghuwanshi, counsel for the\n\n\n\n\n\n     Respondent\/State.\n                              ...\n\n\n                        WITH\n         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2766 OF 2009.\n\n\n     Dhiraj Yashwant Yeole,\n     Age 39 years, Occ.Business,\n     R\/o Chalisgaon,Dist.Jalgaon. ... Applicant.\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::\n                                      2\n\n\n                        Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n     The State of Maharashtra                  ... Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                                     ...\n\n     Mr.Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, advocate holding for\n     Mr.Vinod Patil, advocate for the applicant.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     Mr.N.B.Khandare, Public Prosecutor assisted by\n     Mr.R.B.Raghuwanshi, counsel for the\n     Respondent\/State.\n\n                                     ...\n\n\n\n\n                             \n               ig                  CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                   Date : 05.09.2009.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     1.          These are applications filed U\/s 438 of<\/p>\n
     the Cr.P.C<\/a>. seeking directions that in the event<\/p>\n
     of arrest, the applicants may be released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
     2.          The     incident         giving         rise        to       the<\/p>\n
     applications      is   said    to    have       occurred          between<\/p>\n
     30.6.2009    and    1.7.2009.            It   appears          that      one<\/p>\n
     Purshottam     Patel,    a    contractor,            had       lodged       a<\/p>\n
     report against Dr.Uttam Dhana Mahajan, pertaining<\/p>\n
     to   alleged      defrauding        in    respect         of      certain<\/p>\n
     amounts which were payable to him.                   It was alleged<\/p>\n
     by said complainant Purshottam that he was duped<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
     and     cheated      by    said     Dr.    Uttam       Mahajan.             In<\/p>\n
     pursuance to the said complaint, applicant No.1<\/p>\n
     Manoj, who was then the Additional Superintendent<\/p>\n
     of Police at Chalisgaon, called Dr. Uttam Mahajan,<\/p>\n
     in his office around 10\/10-30 a.m. on 30.6.2009.\n<\/p>\n
     The applicant Manoj deputed PSI Nimbalkar to call<\/p>\n
     said    Dr.    Uttam       Mahajan.        Allegedly,          Dr.     Uttam<\/p>\n
     Mahajan is member of Congress Party and was about<\/p>\n
     to proceed to attend some rally or function at<\/p>\n
     Nasik along with some other co-workers.                              He was<\/p>\n
     taken    on    motor       cycle    by    PSI    Nimbalkar          to     the<\/p>\n
     office of applicant Manoj.                   The applicant Manoj<\/p>\n
     confronted him with the complaint application of<\/p>\n
     Purshottam Patel and told him that some inquiry<\/p>\n
     was to be conducted.           He asked Dr.Uttam Mahajan to<\/p>\n
     request       the     political          party     co-workers,             who<\/p>\n
     lateron       came    there,       to    proceed       to     Nasik        and<\/p>\n
     accordingly         they    left    for    Nasik,           whereas        Dr.<\/p>\n
     Uttam Mahajan remained behind.\n<\/p>\n
     3.            The         allegations        would          show         that<\/p>\n
     applicant      Manoj       threatened       Dr.Uttam         Mahajan        to<\/p>\n
     settle     the       matter    regarding         monetary           dispute<\/p>\n
     between himself and complainant Purshottam Patel.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
     Intermittently,          he    was     asked        to    shell        out     the<\/p>\n
     money     for     settlement              of    the       said        dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     However, the victim (Dr.Uttam) expressed inability<\/p>\n
     to    pay.      After     some        talks       and      interrogation,<\/p>\n
     another applicant – Dhiraj Yeole, arrived at the<\/p>\n
     office of the Additional Superintendent of Police.\n<\/p>\n
     He asked the victim whether                     should he intervene.\n<\/p>\n
     Thereafter, he urged applicant Manoj to release<\/p>\n
     the victim.   ig  There was a demand of ransom of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     60,00,000\/- (Rupees sixty lacs)                        which ultimately<\/p>\n
     was     reduced    due        to     intervention            of       applicant<\/p>\n
     Dhiraj Yeole.           Allegedly, the matter was settled<\/p>\n
     when the victim agreed to issue cheques in respect<\/p>\n
     of the amounts payable to complainant Purshottam<\/p>\n
     Patel     along    with        the     demanded           amount        of     Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     25,00,000\/- (Rupees twenty five lacs) payable to<\/p>\n
     applicant       Manoj.        The     amount         of    Rs.25,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     (Rupees twenty five lacs) was not available with<\/p>\n
     the victim.        The victim contacted his father-in-\n<\/p>\n
     law on cell phone and thereafter it was assured<\/p>\n
     that the amount would be paid in the next morning.\n<\/p>\n
     The applicant – Dhiraj Yeole was the middleman and<\/p>\n
     allegedly       remained       as    surety        for      such      payment.\n<\/p>\n
     The    victim     was    taken        to       house      of      a    relative<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
     applicant Dhiraj in the evening and in company of<\/p>\n
     PSI Nimbalkar, who was deputed to keep vigil.                             At<\/p>\n
     odd hours of the night, the victim was shifted<\/p>\n
     from house of the relative of applicant Dhiraj to<\/p>\n
     his own house.             The victim was not allowed to go<\/p>\n
     anywhere.          In the next morning, the victim was<\/p>\n
     found moving on terrace of that house.                           His son<\/p>\n
     arrived at the place along with the father-in-law<\/p>\n
     to whom the information was given on the earlier<\/p>\n
     day.     They had some talk.             Since the victim was<\/p>\n
     under     custody          of   applicant       Dhiraj         and       PSI<\/p>\n
     Nimbalkar, who was armed with a revolver, the son<\/p>\n
     of     the        victim    sent    a    fax      letter         to      the<\/p>\n
     Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon about the whole<\/p>\n
     episode      alleging       that   amount      of    Rs.21,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     (Rupees twenty one lacs) was demanded for payment<\/p>\n
     to be made to said Purshottam Patel and the victim<\/p>\n
     was put under duress to issue cheques for such<\/p>\n
     amount.           The   victim     was   thereafter         called        at<\/p>\n
     office       of      applicant-Manoj           and     was      released<\/p>\n
     around mid-day.\n<\/p>\n
     4.            The Superintendent of Police proceeded<\/p>\n
     to Chalisgaon along with his two superior Police<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
     Officers        and        conducted       an    inquiry         into        the<\/p>\n
     complaint about such high-handedness of applicant<\/p>\n
     Manoj.     He forwarded a report to the higher Police<\/p>\n
     authority          as      regards     his      findings       arrived        at<\/p>\n
     after     the          inquiry.            Thereupon        the      further<\/p>\n
     investigation was             handed over to CID Nasik Region<\/p>\n
     with a direction to register appropriate offence.\n<\/p>\n
     The offence vide Crime No.145\/2009 was registered<\/p>\n
     at     Chalisgaon
\n                 ig              Police        Station        for        offences<\/p>\n
     punishable U\/ss, 347, 364-A, and 385 read with<\/p>\n
     Section       34<\/a>      of    the      I.P.Code.       The      applicants,<\/p>\n
     however,        eluded         the        arrest.            They        filed<\/p>\n
     applications U\/s 438 of the Cr.P.C<\/a>. in the Court<\/p>\n
     of   Sessions         at    Jalgaon.         The    learned         Sessions<\/p>\n
     Judge, rejected their applications.                           Hence, they<\/p>\n
     have filed these two separate applications seeking<\/p>\n
     directions.\n<\/p>\n
     5.                 The applications are opposed by the<\/p>\n
     State on several grounds. The affidavit-in-reply<\/p>\n
     filed by Mr.Nitin Mitkar, S.P.(CID) would indicate<\/p>\n
     that arrests of the applicants is sought for the<\/p>\n
     purpose of custodial interrogation.                         It is stated<\/p>\n
     that    the     information          about      probable        conspiracy<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
     with   said        Purshottam   Patel    and     advocate         Pravin<\/p>\n
     Chavan     and      the    applicants     is     required         to     be<\/p>\n
     unearthed.\n<\/p>\n
     6.            Heard learned counsel for the applicants<\/p>\n
     and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Main<\/p>\n
     thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of the<\/p>\n
     applicants is that there exists no prima facie<\/p>\n
     case to infer commission of the offence U\/s 364-A<\/p>\n
     of the I.P.C<\/a>ode.\n<\/p>\n
     7.            With        the   help    of       learned          Public<\/p>\n
     Prosecutor Mr.Khandare, I have                  gone through the<\/p>\n
     investigation         papers,    including       the     information<\/p>\n
     regarding      bad     antecedents      of     applicant         Dhiraj.\n<\/p>\n
     For,     it    is    alleged    that    applicant          Dhiraj        is<\/p>\n
     involved       in    several    serious      crimes        and      is     a<\/p>\n
     notorious person.\n<\/p>\n
     8.            So far as legal position is concerned,<\/p>\n
     the criteria which needs to be applied in such<\/p>\n
     matters       is    well   settled.       The      Apex      Court       in<\/p>\n
     “Gajanand Agrawal Vs. State of Orissa and others”\n<\/p>\n
     2007 AIR SCW 2857, recapitulated the factors to be<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
     taken into consideration.                     It is held that where<\/p>\n
     bail was being granted, particularly, where the<\/p>\n
     accused was charged of having a serious offence,<\/p>\n
     it is necessary for the Courts dealing the with<\/p>\n
     application        for    bail          to    consider             among      other<\/p>\n
     circumstances, the following factors :\n<\/p>\n
            “(i) The nature of accusation and the<\/p>\n
            severity
\n                ig            of    punishment                in      case       of<\/p>\n
            conviction and the nature of supporting<\/p>\n
            evidence;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n            (ii)              Reasonable               apprehension              of\n\n            tampering              of            the         witness             or\n      \n\n\n            apprehension                of         threat            to        the\n   \n\n\n\n            complainant;\n\n            (iii)       Prima facie satisfaction of the\n\n\n\n\n\n            Court             in         support                   of          the\n\n<\/pre>\n
            charge.” (Emphasis supplied by me)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     9.           Considering the above legal position, it<\/p>\n
     is amply clear that prima facie case ought to be<\/p>\n
     made   out    to    indicate            that        the      applicants           are<\/p>\n
     involved in commission of an offence of cognizable<\/p>\n
     nature.       There       must     be        prima        facie      supporting<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
     evidence       to        reach       the    conclusion             that       the<\/p>\n
     applicants are             involved and reasonably could be<\/p>\n
     accused of a serious crime of cognizable nature.\n<\/p>\n
     In the present case, it is no doubt true that<\/p>\n
     there    is    prima          facie    material         to     infer        that<\/p>\n
     applicant Manoj is a highly placed Police Officer<\/p>\n
     and applicant Dhiraj has some past bad record and,<\/p>\n
     therefore,         they       have    potential         to     tamper         the<\/p>\n
     witnesses or to threaten the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
                  ig                                                            Thus,<\/p>\n
     ordinarily the bail application of the applicants<\/p>\n
     can not be considered if it is shown that they are<\/p>\n
     involved in a serious crime of cognizable nature.\n<\/p>\n
     10.           Clinching question is whether there is<\/p>\n
     prima facie material to show that the applicants<\/p>\n
     or    either        of     them       are     involved         in      offence<\/p>\n
     punishable U\/s 364-A of the I.P.C<\/a>.                         The other two<\/p>\n
     offences registered against them viz; U\/s 347 and<\/p>\n
     U\/s   385     of     the       I.P.    Code        are       the     bailable<\/p>\n
     offences. Therefore, unless the material on record<\/p>\n
     is    found    to        be    enough       to   prima        facie        infer<\/p>\n
     complicity of the applicants or either of them in<\/p>\n
     the     commission            of   offence       U\/s      385-A       of      the<\/p>\n
     I.P.C<\/a>ode, the discretionary bail can not be denied<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
     to them.\n<\/p>\n
     11.             Before     I     embark           upon      consideration<\/p>\n
     analysis of the material available, it would be<\/p>\n
     useful     to    mention       here        that    Section        364-A<\/a>       was<\/p>\n
     introduced by the Parliament on the Statute book<\/p>\n
     in view of the incidents of kidnapping by the<\/p>\n
     terrorists for ransom or by anti social elements<\/p>\n
     so    as   to
\n                 ig   create        panic       among     the      people.         The<\/p>\n
     objects of the amendment as enunciated                                 in the<\/p>\n
     Amendment        Act<\/a>,    1993     (Act       42     of     1993)       can     be<\/p>\n
     gathered from the following paragraph used while<\/p>\n
     introducing such amendment.\n<\/p>\n
            ”        Kidnappings        by         terrorists             for<\/p>\n
            ransom, for creating panic amongst the<\/p>\n
            people      and     for     securing            release         of<\/p>\n
            arrested         associates          and      cadres        have<\/p>\n
            assumed          serious        dimensions.                   The<\/p>\n
            existing provisions of law have proved<\/p>\n
            to be inadequate as deterrence. The Law<\/p>\n
            Commission in its 42nd Report has also<\/p>\n
            recommended a specific provision to deal<\/p>\n
            with this menace.               It was necessary to<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
           amend the Indian Penal Code<\/a> to provide<\/p>\n
           for      deterrent       punishment          to    persons<\/p>\n
           committing        such     acts        and        to     make<\/p>\n
           consequential amendments to the Code<\/a> of<\/p>\n
           Criminal Procedure, 1973.”\n<\/p>\n
     12.           On    plain    reading       of    the     objects        and<\/p>\n
     reasons which propelled the amendment of Section<\/p>\n
     364-A<\/a>    in  ig1993,    it    would     be      amply        clear    that<\/p>\n
     ordinarily the acts of terrorism or the acts of<\/p>\n
     gangsters, wherein the kidnapping or abduction is<\/p>\n
     committed      with    intention      to     fulfill         demand     for<\/p>\n
     ransom are brought within the purview of this new<\/p>\n
     penal provision.          The allegations in the complaint<\/p>\n
     will have to be considered prima facie without<\/p>\n
     threadbare analysis of the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     13.           On perusal of the fax letter issued by<\/p>\n
     son of the victim to Superintendent of Police,<\/p>\n
     Jalgaon, immediatley in the morning of 1.7.2009,<\/p>\n
     it may be gathered that there was no threat given<\/p>\n
     to the victim         to the effect that he would be done<\/p>\n
     to    death    on   his     failure     to      pay     the    demanded<\/p>\n
     amount.       What transpires from the statement of the<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
     victim,        which     was        recorded          lateron        by      the<\/p>\n
     Superintendent           of        Police,       is       that      he       was<\/p>\n
     threatened that he would be put behind the bars.\n<\/p>\n
     In other words, applicant Manoj is said to have<\/p>\n
     threatened       the victim of his arrest in connection<\/p>\n
     with     the    complaint          lodged      by      said      Purshottam<\/p>\n
     Patel.     It may be that applicant Manoj acted with<\/p>\n
     high-handedness. It may be that he was harsh while<\/p>\n
     dealing    with
\n                 ig         the    victim.         It      may     be    that       he<\/p>\n
     unnecessarily          took        help     of      the       intermeddler<\/p>\n
     probably to coerce or to say coax the victim to<\/p>\n
     shell out the money.               There are two possibilities.\n<\/p>\n
     First, he wanted to detain the victim until the<\/p>\n
     payment to said Purshottam was ensured due to some<\/p>\n
     other considerations.               Another possibility is that<\/p>\n
     he wanted to extract some money from the victim by<\/p>\n
     putting him under fear of arrest.                         Here it may be<\/p>\n
     noticed        that     applicant         Manoj        had       the        legal<\/p>\n
     authority to effect the arrest.\n<\/p>\n
     14.            The     most        significant         aspect          of    the<\/p>\n
     matter     is    that        the    Superintendent             of      Police,<\/p>\n
     Jalgaon        (Mr.Rastogi)          reported         that       the        facts<\/p>\n
     revealed from his inquiry indicated commission of<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
     the offences U\/s 347 and 385 of the I.P.C<\/a>ode.                              He<\/p>\n
     did   not    say    that    offence      U\/s     364-A       read      with<\/p>\n
     Section 34<\/a> of the I.P.Code could be registered<\/p>\n
     against     the    applicants.           It     emerges       from       the<\/p>\n
     record      that     applicant          Manoj      and       the       S.P.\n<\/p>\n
     (Mr.Rastogi) were not pulling on well with each<\/p>\n
     other.      Thus, it does not prima facie appear that<\/p>\n
     Mr.Rastogi        could     have    intentionally             tried        to<\/p>\n
     screen applicant Manoj.\n<\/p>\n
                  ig                     Needless to say, there is<\/p>\n
     prima facie material to reach conclusion that the<\/p>\n
     charge for offence U\/s 364-A was lateron added<\/p>\n
     when the investigation came in the hands of the<\/p>\n
     C.I.D.       Why    the     opinion      of     Mr.Rastogi         (S.P.)<\/p>\n
     should      be    brushed    aside.?            There      appears         no<\/p>\n
     satisfactory        explanation.         On     the      other       hand,<\/p>\n
     probability of subsequent addition of the charge<\/p>\n
     in aggravated form is prima facie borne out from<\/p>\n
     the record.\n<\/p>\n
     15.          The    entire     episode        prima      facie       shows<\/p>\n
     reprehensible       attitude       of    applicants          Manoj       and<\/p>\n
     Dhiraj.      No doubt, there is prima facie material<\/p>\n
     to infer that the other two charges may stick to<\/p>\n
     them.     Even so, the material placed on record does<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                        14<\/span><\/p>\n
     not    prima    facie      indicate     that      the     victim        was<\/p>\n
     abducted or kidnapped at the inception, with a<\/p>\n
     view to demand ransom by putting him under fear of<\/p>\n
     death.      For, the prosecution story is that the<\/p>\n
     victim was called by PSI Nimbalkar and was taken<\/p>\n
     to the office of applicant Manoj on the motor-\n<\/p>\n
     cycle as a pillion rider. After a short while,<\/p>\n
     other co-workers of his party went to the office<\/p>\n
     of the Additional Superintendent of Police and met<\/p>\n
     the victim.         In other words, the             public members<\/p>\n
     and staff members of the office of the applicant<\/p>\n
     Manoj were knowing that the victim was brought to<\/p>\n
     that     office.     In    the    broad     day     light        and      in<\/p>\n
     presence       of    several       public      members,           it      is<\/p>\n
     difficult to say that there was “abduction with<\/p>\n
     intention to force the victim to pay ransom” when<\/p>\n
     he was taken to the office.               The statement of the<\/p>\n
     victim indicated that he was rashly dealt with. To<\/p>\n
     put      in his words appliant – Manoj talked “In<\/p>\n
     Police language” and gave abuses                  while he was in<\/p>\n
     that    office.\n<\/p>\n
     16.         Faced         with   this     difficulty,            learned<\/p>\n
     Public      Prosecutor           Mr.Khandare,           invited           my<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
     attention to certain observations in “Malleshi Vs.<\/p>\n
     State of Karnataka” 2004 AIR SCW 5585.                      The Apex<\/p>\n
     Court has observed that to attract provisions of<\/p>\n
     Section 364-A<\/a> of I.P.Code, what is required to be<\/p>\n
     proved is :\n<\/p>\n
            “(i) that      the    accused       kidnapped          or<\/p>\n
            abducted the person;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii)
\n               ig   kept    him   under    detention          after<\/p>\n
            such kidnapping and abduction; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (iii)    that the kidnapping or abduction<\/p>\n
            was for ransom.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     These observations can not be, however, read in<\/p>\n
     isolation inasmuch as, the Apex Court in para 7<\/p>\n
     reproduced Section 364-A<\/a> and moreover, the fact<\/p>\n
     situation of the given case is not clear in order<\/p>\n
     to examine whether the kidnapped victim by name<\/p>\n
     Vijay Bhaskar was threatened to do away with his<\/p>\n
     life on failure to pay ransom so demanded.                          The<\/p>\n
     Apex   Court   in     “Vishwanath    Gupta       Vs.      State       of<\/p>\n
     Uttaranchal”     in    Special     Leave     Petition          (Cri.)<\/p>\n
     4516\/2006, analysing Section 364-A<\/a> and in para 6<\/p>\n
     of the judgment observed :\n<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
             “There are three stages in this Section,<\/p>\n
             one   is   the   kidnapping    or     abduction,<\/p>\n
             second is threat of death         coupled with<\/p>\n
             the demand of money and lastly when the<\/p>\n
             demand is not made, then causing death,<\/p>\n
             if the three ingredients are available,<\/p>\n
             that will constitute the offence under<\/p>\n
             Section 364-A<\/a> of the I.P.Code.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr.Khandare, would submit that in said case, the<\/p>\n
     Apex     Court     was   mainly    concerned           with        the<\/p>\n
     jurisdictional issue. The Apex Court held that any<\/p>\n
     of the three ingredients can take place at one<\/p>\n
     place or at different places.         Still, however, the<\/p>\n
     main ingredient at the second stage is “threat of<\/p>\n
     death coupled with the demand of money” and that<\/p>\n
     should be prima facie satisfied in the peculiar<\/p>\n
     fact situation so as to attract Section 364-A<\/a> of<\/p>\n
     the I.P.Code.\n<\/p>\n
     17.           In the context, a Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
     Court in “Philips Fadrick D’souza and another Vs.<\/p>\n
     State    of    Maharashtra   and   another”             2008       (4)<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
     Mh.L.J. 380 observed :\n<\/p>\n
           “The     essential      ingredients            of      the<\/p>\n
           statutory provision, apart from the act<\/p>\n
           of kidnapping, abduction or, as the case<\/p>\n
           may be, keeping a person in detention<\/p>\n
           thereafter, are a threat to cause hurt<\/p>\n
           or a reasonable apprehension of such a<\/p>\n
           consequence or causing death or hurt, in<\/p>\n
           order to compel the payment of ransom or<\/p>\n
           the doing or abstention from doing any<\/p>\n
           act by government, a foreign state, an<\/p>\n
           inter     governmental        body     or      by      any<\/p>\n
           person.       The purpose of the unlawful act<\/p>\n
           is to demand ransom or to compel the<\/p>\n
           doing    or    abstention     from      doing        of    a<\/p>\n
           particular       act.        Kidnapping         or     the<\/p>\n
           abduction by itself does not lead to an<\/p>\n
           inference of the underlying purpose with<\/p>\n
           which it was carried out.               The purpose<\/p>\n
           must exist at the time when the act of<\/p>\n
           kidnapping or abduction takes place.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18.          The material on record would show that<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                      18<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   applicant-Manoj         did     not     visit        house        of<\/p>\n
     applicant Dhiraj or that of his relative during<\/p>\n
     the   night    time   or   till      next    morning.         What      is<\/p>\n
     alleged   and    is   prima     facie       explicit        from       the<\/p>\n
     material on record         is that he was detained and<\/p>\n
     wrongfully     confined    at     residential          house       of     a<\/p>\n
     relative of applicant Dhiraj and subsequently at<\/p>\n
     the house of said Dhiraj.                   The learned Public<\/p>\n
     Prosecutor Mr.Khandare, would point out that PSI<\/p>\n
     Nimbalkar was deputed to keep vigil and that it<\/p>\n
     has been specifically alleged that PSI Nimbalkar<\/p>\n
     was armed with revolver.             Mere fact that an armed<\/p>\n
     Police Officer was deputed to keep watch on the<\/p>\n
     victim would not even prima facie indicate threat<\/p>\n
     conveyed to the victim of putting him to the fear<\/p>\n
     of death. In no express words such threat was<\/p>\n
     communicated nor version of PSI Nimbalkar shows<\/p>\n
     that he was asked to eliminate the victim if the<\/p>\n
     ransom was not paid.\n<\/p>\n
     19.           Mr.Khandare, would submit that custodial<\/p>\n
     interrogation of both the applicants is necessary<\/p>\n
     in    order      to    effectively           carry          out        the<\/p>\n
     investigation and only a prima facie view has to<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                           19<\/span><\/p>\n
     be taken.        He referred to observations in “State<\/p>\n
     Rep.    by     the    C.B.I.       Vs.    Anil       Sharma”       (1997)      7<\/p>\n
     Supreme        Court        Cases        187.        The        Apex     Court<\/p>\n
     highlighted          importance of custodial interrogation<\/p>\n
     in    an     appropriate      case.         It       is    observed       that<\/p>\n
     success in such interrogation would elude if the<\/p>\n
     suspected person knows that he is well protected<\/p>\n
     and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during<\/p>\n
     the time he is interrogated.\n<\/p>\n
                   ig                                     Mr.Khandare, also<\/p>\n
     invited my attention to certain other observations<\/p>\n
     in “Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of W.B.” (2005) 4<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court Cases 303, wherein the Apex Court<\/p>\n
     analysed a catena of case law on the subject and<\/p>\n
     held that interim order to the effect that the<\/p>\n
     accused be not arrested can not be passed U\/s 438<\/p>\n
     of     the    Cr.P.C<\/a>.         There       are        cases       and   cases.\n<\/p>\n
     Ultimately, the Court is required to strike down<\/p>\n
     balance       between       liberty       of     a     person      and      the<\/p>\n
     necessity       of    custodial          interrogation            in   public<\/p>\n
     interest.\n<\/p>\n
     20.            The          learned            Public             Prosecutor<\/p>\n
     Mr.Khandare,          would    submit           that       the     custodial<\/p>\n
     interrogation          of    the    applicants             is    likely      to<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                         20<\/span><\/p>\n
     reveal certain important facts like possibility of<\/p>\n
     conspiracy between them and said Purshottam Patel<\/p>\n
     as well one Asdvocate Mr.Pravin Chavan.                         He would<\/p>\n
     submit that the information regarding vehicle and<\/p>\n
     the ownership of the vehicle so used for shifting<\/p>\n
     of the victim from place to place is also to be<\/p>\n
     revealed.       The applicants Manoj and Dhiraj were<\/p>\n
     asked to appear before the I.O. during the period<\/p>\n
     from earlier order till today.\n<\/p>\n
                   ig                                 It is undisputed\n\n     that they had appeared before the I.O.                           It also\n                 \n<\/pre>\n
     appears that they were interrogated by the I.O.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that<\/p>\n
     except denial, no much cooperation is given by the<\/p>\n
     applicants.           In    my    opinion,      recovery          of     the<\/p>\n
     vehicles      used     during      the    night       time       is      not<\/p>\n
     necessary       and        very   important          part       of       the<\/p>\n
     investigation.         Secondly, whether conspiracy was<\/p>\n
     hatched out by the applicants and said Purshottam<\/p>\n
     Patel along with advocate Pravin Chavan is also<\/p>\n
     not germane to the constitution of the offence U\/s<\/p>\n
     364-A    of    the     I.P.C<\/a>ode.         In     my     opinion,          the<\/p>\n
     significant omission regarding the threat to the<\/p>\n
     life    of    the   victim on       his failure           to pay         the<\/p>\n
     alleged ransom will be a material criteria to be<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                        21<\/span><\/p>\n
     considered.\n<\/p>\n
     21.         Reverting to the factors which are set<\/p>\n
     out in case of “Gajanand Agrawal Vs. State of<\/p>\n
     Orissa and others” (supra), when the nature of<\/p>\n
     supporting evidence and prima facie satisfaction<\/p>\n
     of the Court in support of the charge of abduction<\/p>\n
     for the purpose of extracting ransom under threat<\/p>\n
     of death is absent, the applicants are entitled to<\/p>\n
     liberty.     However, stringent conditions will have<\/p>\n
     to    be   imposed      in      order   to     ensure         that       the<\/p>\n
     investigation is not impaired. It may be mentioned<\/p>\n
     that if substance is found in the allegations made<\/p>\n
     against applicant Manoj, the Home Department is at<\/p>\n
     liberty to take appropriate action so as to dispel<\/p>\n
     any apprehension about tampering of the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     If such apprehension still exists, it is difficult<\/p>\n
     to    comprehend     as    to    why    he   is     not      put     under<\/p>\n
     suspension.        It     is    reported      that      he    has      been<\/p>\n
     transferred but he has not joined the new posting.\n<\/p>\n
     This allegation is, however, refuted on his behalf<\/p>\n
     on the ground that he is not given any particular<\/p>\n
     posting as such.             I do not wish to enter into<\/p>\n
     the thicket of the controversy which is alien to<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                      22<\/span><\/p>\n
     the present matter.\n<\/p>\n
     22.          Under     the     circumstances,              both        the<\/p>\n
     applications are allowed on following terms :\n<\/p>\n
     (i).         The applicants be released on bail on<\/p>\n
     furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     (Rupees     fifty    thousand)       each,    in    the     event       of<\/p>\n
     their arrest, before the concerned Police Officer;\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)         Both    the     applicants       shall       not      enter<\/p>\n
     limits of Jalgaon District during the period of<\/p>\n
     investigation and shall not contact any of the<\/p>\n
     witness or shall make no attempt to tamper with<\/p>\n
     the prosecution evidence;\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)        Both the applicants shall attend office<\/p>\n
     of    the   Investigating      Officer       at    Nasik      on     each<\/p>\n
     Tuesday and Saturday between 10-00 and 1-00 p.m.<\/p>\n
     and shall cooperate with him.             If so required, the<\/p>\n
     I.O. is at liberty to record their interrogation<\/p>\n
     on audio player.\n<\/p>\n
     (iv)         If after collecting due material, the<\/p>\n
     Investigating Officer is satisfied that sufficient<\/p>\n
     evidence      is     available       to      infer       any       prior<\/p>\n
     conspiracy and commission of the offence U\/s 364-A<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                 23<\/span><\/p>\n
     of the I.P.C<\/a>ode, with the help of newly available<\/p>\n
     material, then he would be at liberty to seek<\/p>\n
     Narco Analysis Test and for such purpose may apply<\/p>\n
     to the concerned Judicial Magistrate or Sessions<\/p>\n
     Judge as the case may be. In case such a request<\/p>\n
     is granted by the concerned Court, the applicants<\/p>\n
     shall   appear   personally     to     undergo          such       a<\/p>\n
     scientific test or any like test.\n<\/p>\n
     (v)<\/p>\n
               The applicants are put on notice that if<\/p>\n
     any of the above mentioned conditions is breached<\/p>\n
     then the bail order would be cancelled only for<\/p>\n
     the reason of such breach and without considering<\/p>\n
     any other matter.\n<\/p>\n
     23.       The       Criminal      Applications                  are<\/p>\n
     accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)<\/p>\n
     asp\/office\/Crapp278609<\/p>\n
                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:01 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2786 OF 2009. Manoj Prabhakar Lohar, of District Thane, Indian Inhabitant and was posted as Addl. Superintendent of Police, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. … Applicant. Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-252613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPolice vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-11T23:44:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T23:44:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3627,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T23:44:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-11T23:44:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T23:44:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009"},"wordCount":3627,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009","name":"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T23:44:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/police-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Police vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252613","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=252613"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252613\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252613"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252613"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252613"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}