RAJU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants apprehending arrest, in relation to offence registered vide CR No.123 of 2020 with Police Station, Harsul for committing offence punishable under section 379 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have preferred this application, seeking pre-arrest bail.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP. Perused the FIR and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) In brief, it is contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants are agriculturists by profession and falsely implicated in the case at the behest of the informant. The allegations made in the complaint itself are not sufficient to attract the registration of offence under section 379 of the IPC. The complaint has been lodged on account animosity between officer of Mahamarg contractors and the applicants. In order to take vengeance, false complaint has been lodged alleging that they have committed theft of one brass of stone dust. It is submitted that the complaint has been lodged with malafide intention. The informant had not seen the applicant committing theft of sand dust. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of hearsay information received by informant. It is further submitted that the applicants are law abiding citizens with no criminal antecedents. In order to conduct investigation, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. It is further submitted that the applicants have deposited Rs.30,000/- with the Court to show their bona fides. The value of property alleged to be stolen is not more than Rs.3000/-. In that view, no recovery to be made from them. The applicants have deep roots in the society. The arrest of the applicants would lead to humiliation and harassment for no offence committed on their part.