JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This criminal application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is made by the petitioner/accused, apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 240 of 2000 for offences punishable under sections 364, 366 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and prayed that in the event of their arrest, they be directed to be released on bail forthwith on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper. 2. The brief facts of the case and the background leading to the petitioners making this application are required to be stated which are as follows : One Vinayak Prabhakar Korgaonkar is the complainant in this case, who filed complaint on 15th April, 2000 at about 2.00 hours in Malad Police Station regarding missing of his wife Siddhi. This was registered as Missing Complaint No. 36 of 2000. Thereafter, on 13th June, 2000 at about 8.15 p.m. he again came to Malad Police Station and filed a written complaint specifically against the present petitioners, who are husband and wife, under sections 364, 366 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, accusing them categorically about alluring his wife Siddhi with financial gain and meddling in the domestic affairs of the complainant and his wife, of provoking her to aggravate the differences between the complainant and his wife which were essentially of the domestic nature and forcefully, with the help of some other persons and without her consent, kidnapping her and detaining her at some unknown place. The complainant also showed strong concern, apprehension and suspicion against both the petitioners that they had either done her to death or dealt with her in some other illegal manner. This was the specific allegation made by the complainant against the present petitioners in the complaint dated 13th June, 2000, which came to be registered at Malad Police Station. 3. In the said complaint, the complainant had given previous history about her and his wife's initial acquaintance with the petitioners which shortly transformed into the friendship and how they were very close to each other and how they used to often go for outing, to see cinema movies and to hotels. 3. In the said complaint, the complainant had given previous history about her and his wife's initial acquaintance with the petitioners which shortly transformed into the friendship and how they were very close to each other and how they used to often go for outing, to see cinema movies and to hotels. The complainant stated that in December 1999, petitioner No. 1 made inter-caste love marriage with petitioner No. 2, who was working in his office and when they went for their honey moon to Goa, the complainant, his wife-Siddhi and some of their common friends along with their families also went there and they had spent there about 8 to 10 days along with the petitioners in a happy atmosphere. 4. The complainant has further stated that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were Directors of St. Angelo Computers Ltd., which was having about 17 branches all over Bombay, having 2000 students availing computer education from the said institute. In February 2000, petitioner No. 1/Rajesh came to the complainant's office and told him that his company was going public and requested the complainant whether his wife-Siddhi would be willing to act as a Director of the said company. Siddhi agreed to this proposition. 5. The complainant has further stated that the complainant's father was suffering from paralysis and, therefore, had no control over his bowl movements. Since about 1 year and 3 months he had kept his parents at his distant relative's place at Virar and that sometime he used to take them to his place at Kandivali and again used to take them back to Virar. The complainant has stated that Siddhi used to resent her father-in-law's inability to go to the toilet as she thought that, it was unhygienic. On this point, there used to be quarrels between husband and wife. The petitioner used to come to know about these quarrels and petitioner No. 1 intentionally used to provoke Siddhi, instead of trying to work as a mediator between husband and wife. Siddhi, therefore, used to be displeased with the complainant and used to praise Rajesh. However, complainant never used to say anything as he had accepted Rajesh as his friend. Rajesh also used to come to the complainant's house when the complainant was not at home. He also used to talk to his wife on telephone on many occasions. 6. Siddhi, therefore, used to be displeased with the complainant and used to praise Rajesh. However, complainant never used to say anything as he had accepted Rajesh as his friend. Rajesh also used to come to the complainant's house when the complainant was not at home. He also used to talk to his wife on telephone on many occasions. 6. The complainant has further stated that on 13th April, 2000, at about 8.30 p.m. he told Siddhi that his parents wanted to come and stay at their place and, therefore, on the next day, he would go to Virar and bring them at Kandivali at their place. At that time, petitioner No. 2-Sugra also was present there. As usual, Siddhi did not like this and there was a tiff between the complainant and his wife, in the presence of Sugra/petitioner No. 2. After some time, petitioner No. 1 also came to the residence of the complainant and started discussing this topic with the complainant, taking Siddhi's side. Thereafter all of them had dinner at the place of complainant and thereafter the petitioner went to their residence. The complainant, thereafter, told his wife that it would have been desirable that there was no quarrel between them on this point. Since she was in an angry mood, the complainant asked her to forgive him. Thereafter they all went to sleep. 7. As per the complainant's story, on 14th April, 2000, after getting up as usual, Siddhi prepared breakfast and the complainant left for Virar to bring his parents at about 9.30 in the morning. Before leaving house, he talked to Siddhi about previous night's incident and Siddhi also asked for forgiveness from her husband, i.e. the complainant. The complainant before leaving the house rang up petitioner No. 2 and asked her to convince Siddhi. When he came back along with his parents by about 7 p.m., he saw that there was a lock at his place. The complainant became mentally disturbed seeing that Siddhi was not at home, when his parents came home. He brought the keys from his neighbours and went inside the house along with his parents. When he came back along with his parents by about 7 p.m., he saw that there was a lock at his place. The complainant became mentally disturbed seeing that Siddhi was not at home, when his parents came home. He brought the keys from his neighbours and went inside the house along with his parents. He learnt from his neighbour Smt. Parekh that Siddhi left the keys of the house and both the daughters (Medha, aged 8 years and Kajal, aged one year) at the place of some other neighbours and had gone out in the afternoon at about 1.15 or 1.30 p.m. and that she had not told as to where she was going. At about 7.50 p.m. petitioner No. 2-Sugra rang up the complainant and made enquiries about Siddhi. The complainant told her that Siddhi had gone out and had not returned. Thereafter, Sugra told the complainant that at about 4.45 p.m. Siddhi had talked to petitioner No. 2 on Mobile and had told her that Siddhi would be reaching home shortly. After making enquiries with the complainant's father-in-law's place and also at the places of other friends, it was revealed that Siddhi had not gone to anybody's place. At about 10 O'clock in the night, petitioner No. 1 rang up complainant and told him that Siddhi had come to his office at Malad at about 4.40 in the afternoon and had handed over her leather purse to Prof. Satnam Singh, who was an employee of his institute. Petitioner No. 1 told the complainant that Siddhi had told Satnam Singh that she would come back to take her purse, but that she did not come, nor was there any telephone from her. At that time, both the petitioners were not present at their Malad Branch of the institute. 8. The complainant has further stated that thereafter he again made enquiries with various friends and relatives, but there was no clue of Siddhi. Therefore, on 15th April, 2000 at about 2 O'clock in the wee hours, both the petitioners and the complainant went to Malad Police Station and lodged missing complaint. 9. Thereafter the complainant has stated that while he was thus making enquiries about the sudden disappearance of his wife, he realized that both the petitioners were minutely keeping an eye on his activities and were intentionally trying to disturb his mind by asking unwarranted questions. 9. Thereafter the complainant has stated that while he was thus making enquiries about the sudden disappearance of his wife, he realized that both the petitioners were minutely keeping an eye on his activities and were intentionally trying to disturb his mind by asking unwarranted questions. The complainant also learnt that on the very day when Siddhi had disappeared and when he himself had gone to Virar, the petitioners from their Mobile number rang up the complainant's residential number 14 times and talked to Siddhi for about 2 hours, but that when he asked the petitioners about Siddhi's disappearance and was discussing the said issue with them, they concealed this fact from the complainant. In fact, they stated that when the complainant had gone to Virar, they never rang up the complainant's residence. The complainant, therefore, became suspicious because of this conduct of the petitioners. According to him, the petitioners allured his wife of financial gain by sort of brainwashing her that, by becoming the Director of their company, she would get Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and because of the said circumstantial evidence, mainly about their link and frequent telephone calls made by the petitioners on the very day, when Siddhi disappeared, by talking to Siddhi and the suppression of this fact, made him very suspicious. He, therefore, filed this complaint praying that the petitioners be dealt with in accordance with law. 10. As the wheels of law started moving, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, praying for anticipatory bail. However, the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 7th July, 2000, rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, observing that it was a serious case where the police had to be given little more time for the purposes of interrogation and to try to find out the whereabouts of Siddhi and that the matter was required to be investigated to find out the link between the petitioners and Siddhi and the fact of her missing over night. He observed that the petitioners were the last persons, who had talk with Siddhi on 14th April, 2000 not only once or twice, but on a number of times on the very same day and that visit of Siddhi to the office of petitioner No. 1 was also a matter of mystery, which was to be solved especially when the complainant also has an office just opposite to petitioner No. 1's office. 11. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court, praying for anticipatory bail. 12. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bobde appearing for the petitioner, so also the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Janardhanan appearing for the State, so also Mr. Pradhan, appearing for the original complainant. I have also gone through the proceedings. 13. There is on the record supplementary statement made by the complainant Vinayak dated 10th July, 2000, in which he has disclosed some more facts with respect to his wife Siddhi and some allegedly offending statements made by petitioner No. 1/Rajesh to the complainant with respect to Siddhi. The complainant has stated in this statement that petitioner No. 1 used to comment jokingly, "Vinayak you are Ram. I am Ravana and I am going to abduct your wife". The complainant used to ignore this as he had friendly relations with Rajesh. The complainant has stated that petitioner No. 1 made the above mentioned statement about 20 to 25 times prior to disappearance of Siddhi. 14. He has also stated that 15 to 20 days prior to disappearance of Siddhi. Siddhi had made a complaint to the complainant that Rajesh rang her up in the absence of the complainant and on the telephone used some indecent words and, therefore, she was very much annoyed with Rajesh. Thereafter, according to her version, Rajesh had requested Siddhi not to divulge this to Vinayak (complainant). However, Siddhi told about this incident to Vinayak. 15. The complainant has also stated that few days prior to the disappearance of Siddhi, when Rajesh and the complainant were travelling in the car of Rajesh, Rajesh (Petitioner No. 1) thumbed his hand forcefully on the steering wheel of the car and emphatically said. "Vinayak when I like a particular thing, I somehow can manage to get it and nobody has power to prevent me from doing it". "Vinayak when I like a particular thing, I somehow can manage to get it and nobody has power to prevent me from doing it". "Zfouk;d- t¨ pht eqÖ¨ ilar Árh âS— eS Î fdlhHkh rjg gkfly dj Y¨rk gûWa Ïj n÷fu;kdh d¨Ã rkdn e÷Ö¨ j¨d ugh ldrh-" The complainant has stated that he, however, neglected Rajesh as he had faith in him. 16. Copy of this complaint is annexed by the police to the affidavit filed by them today. They have also annexed copy of the statement and record of the Telecommunication Department showing the number and duration of the calls made from the Mobile number by petitioner No. 1 to Siddhi during the absence of the complainant when he had gone to Virar to bring his parents on 14th April, 2000. This record speaks for itself and shows that the petitioners were continuously in touch with the missing lady on the day in question and that they were talking to the victim more than 50 minutes on one call and 35 minutes on other call and in all the petitioners called her for 15 times. One does not know what the conversation was about, but the fact remains that the petitioners were the last persons with whom the missing Siddhi had a contact. It is also mysterious, when her own husband's office was just opposite the office of petitioner No. 1, she chose to keep her leather hand bag and chain in the petitioner No. 1's office and not in the office of the complainant. The undue interest taken by the petitioners in the domestic affairs of the complainant and his wife also appears to be intriguing in spite of their alleged friendship amongst themselves. There is also an allurement given to Siddhi by the petitioners about earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per month by urging her to become Director of the petitioner's company. All these circumstances, at this stage, are appearing to be incoherent. There are many loose ends. There are many grey areas and many queries which are yet to be answered. These answers can be given only by the petitioner and none else. 17. Mr. 1,50,000/- per month by urging her to become Director of the petitioner's company. All these circumstances, at this stage, are appearing to be incoherent. There are many loose ends. There are many grey areas and many queries which are yet to be answered. These answers can be given only by the petitioner and none else. 17. Mr. Bobde appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there should not be unlawful arrest and no arrest can be justified just because there is suspicion expressed by the complainant, in his complaint, depriving the person of his liberty and that it is against the constitutional mandate. 18. Mr. Janardhanan, the learned Addl. Advocate General, so also Mr. Pradhan, appearing for the complainant, vehemently argued that the police have to do their duties and for proper discharge of their duties, interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary. They argued that the petitioner were the last persons with whom the missing lady had last contacts and that considering all the circumstantial evidence and the circumstances at present one does not know what has happened to the lady. They submitted that there is very strong suspicion emerging from the complaint of Vinayak which points an accusing, finger towards them at least at this prima facie stage. 19. I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Pradhan. Unwarranted and indiscriminate arrest of a person is indeed against the constitutional mandate. There is no quarrel with this proposition at all. However, the present case at hand indeed is of a serious nature. A mother of two small daughters, one of whom is hardly of one year, is missing and a strong suspicion is emerging from the complaint of the complainant, pointing an accusing finger towards the petitioners. There is something more in this matter than meets the eye. What is before the Court is only a tip of the iceberg. Granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioners will prove to be an impediment in the investigation of the police. There are answers which can be provided only by the petitioners. There are question marks which are staring at out face. The offence alleged against the petitioners is indeed a serious one and in my opinion granting anticipatory bail would hamper police investigation as their thorough interrogation is necessary. There are answers which can be provided only by the petitioners. There are question marks which are staring at out face. The offence alleged against the petitioners is indeed a serious one and in my opinion granting anticipatory bail would hamper police investigation as their thorough interrogation is necessary. In view of this, following order is passed : Criminal Application No. 2167 of 2000 is rejected. Application rejected. -----