JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the P.S.I., Police Station Parli-Vaijanath, District Beed, on May 27, 1981 on a report by complainant Hiralal Chunilal Sarda, a resident of Parli-Vaijanath, Taluka Ambejogai, District Beed, contending that he had entrusted about 163 tolas of gold ornaments on account of mutual intimate relationship for the purpose of safe custody to the petitioner. These ornaments belonged to the complainant's wife, son-in-law Narsingdas Maniyar from Gangakhed and relation Chandulal Nawandar from Govardhan. They were entrusted to the petitioner for safe custody on March 5, 1981 in the presence of two witnesses being Chandulal Nawandar and Khushalchand Gatagat, It was on May 15, 1981 that the complainant was called by the petitioner-accused and told that all the ornaments kept by him were stolen. Upon hearing this, it is alleged, complainant Hiralal told the petitioner-accused to make a report to the Police Station. According to the complainant, the petitioner-accused admitted the entrustment of the ornaments in the presence of Hiralal s/o Pakshiram, Baburao s/o Atoba Sangai, Dhondiram s/o Shrikisan and Murlidhar s/o Girdharilal as well as some other people from Parli Town. The petitioner-accused having refused to file a report of the alleged theft, complainant Hiralal filed a report alleging criminal breach of trust with the Police Station on the basis of which Crime No. 66 of 1981 was registered.

(2.) The petitioner-accused filed an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Beed, vide Misc. Criminal Petition No. 92 of 1981 By his decision dt. June 3, 1981, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner-accused and to cancel the ad interim anticipatory bail which was granted to him earlier. In order to enable the petitioner to bring bail from the High Court the interim bail was extended up to June 8, 1981.

(3.) The petitioner-accused has alleged that there was enmity between him and the complainant on account of certain election disputes. It is an admitted position that upon search of the house of the petitioner, nothing incriminating was found. So far as the alleged enmity between the petitioner-accused and complainant Hiralal is concerned, the petitioner alleges as under :-