Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. This is an application for regular bail. 3. Applicant is named as accused in Crime No. 224 of 2011, Zilla Peth Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 323, 504, 506, 109, 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. One Chandrashekhar s/o Prakash Attarde, Builder and Developer, is the informant. 5. Gist of the complaint lodged by Chandrashekhar Attarde and the background is as follows :The complaint is filed by one Mr. Chandrashekhar Attarde on 29th July, 2011. According to the complainant, he and his brother-in-law Mr. Ulhas Patil had purchased a plot of land for a sum of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- and wanted to develop the same. The complainant had submitted papers to the officer of Bhusaval Municipal Council for sanction of layout on 16th April, 2011. Mr. Jakir Shaikh, officer of the Bhusaval Municipal Council informed him that the file concerning the complainant is lying at the bunglow of the present applicant and that the complainant should see the present applicant. He was also informed that unless the present applicant grants the permission, the file would not move for sanction and layout cannot be sanctioned. Thereafter, the complainant is alleged to have visited the present applicant at Ajintha Rest House where the present applicant is said to have put terms to the complainant, viz; to pay a sum of Rs. 1 Crore or offer 25% of the land to the present applicant. Thereafter, the First Information Report came to be registered and accordingly trap was arranged. The pre-trap panchnama was conducted on 29th July, 2011 and the amount was agreed to be paid to one Mr. Bablu @ Balkirishna. According to the complainant, one installment of Rs.10 Lacs was paid prior to laying down the trap. In the second installment, an amount of Rs.15 Lacs was to be paid. The trap was successfully laid and said Bablu @ Balkrishna was found in possession of cash of Rs.15,00,000/- and odd, being the second installment. 6. Applicant was arrested on 29th July, 2011. Various accused were arrested on different dates. They were initially kept in police custody, and ultimately, remanded to magisterial custody. 7. The trap was successfully laid and said Bablu @ Balkrishna was found in possession of cash of Rs.15,00,000/- and odd, being the second installment. 6. Applicant was arrested on 29th July, 2011. Various accused were arrested on different dates. They were initially kept in police custody, and ultimately, remanded to magisterial custody. 7. The prayer for bail was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, then by Sessions Court, and in Criminal Application No. 4773 of 2011 by this Court (Coram : R.Y. Ganoo, J.) by order dated 15th November, 2011. 8. Applicant’s Petition for Special Leave to Appeal being No. 908 of 2011, filed in Hon’ble Supreme Court has been dismissed on 16th December, 2011, with order as follows : “ORDER We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the High Court in the month of February, 2012 and the same may be considered on its own merits.” 9. Present application has been filed pursuant to the liberty, as was noted in the order quoted in foregoing paragraph. 10. Heard Shri A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate for the applicant, Shri S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondent / State and Shri P.P. Chavan, Advocate, for the informant who had applied for leave to assist the prosecution. 11. Learned Senior Advocate Shri A.P. Mundargi narrowed down the compass of his submissions to the points as below :- (i) The applicant is in custody for more than six months since arrest in July, 2011. (ii) Investigation is already completed and charge-sheet has been filed. (iii) During the trial, recording of voices, for reference for opinion of Forensic Laboratory, has been recently done. (iv) The completion of trial cannot be easily foreseen within any estimated duration. (v) Offences under Sections 384 and 385 I.P.C. are punishable with three years and two years of imprisonment, respectively. (vi) If at all Section 386 of I.P.C. is considered applicable in view of the threats as described in the F.I.R., it would be punishable up to ten years, and sentence never be of 10 years. Other offences are not serious. (vii) All offences are triable by the Magistrate. (vi) If at all Section 386 of I.P.C. is considered applicable in view of the threats as described in the F.I.R., it would be punishable up to ten years, and sentence never be of 10 years. Other offences are not serious. (vii) All offences are triable by the Magistrate. (viii) Technically and due to threat to the life or property, the offence may look serious. However, considering the social and political background of the applicant and falsehood of the report, the offences are really not serious. The object of justice would not be served by keeping the applicant in jail for longer duration. Applicant cannot be kept in confinement to let him have the taste of incarceration. (ix) However large amount is alleged as extortion money, the magnitude itself does not make the case and the offence to be of a serious nature. The seriousness may have to be gathered with reference to the charge, and that is really not grave and serious. (x) No apprehension is expressed by the prosecution that the accused is likely to flee from clutches of law and from trial. (xi) Accused is willing and undertakes to stay away from Jalgaon district and to abide by such condition as may be ordered and would enter Bhusawal town for attending the Court case. (xii) The accusation that large number of cases are pending against the applicant is not true. Only four cases are pending against the applicant and those cases are also not serious. (xiii) Long list of cases relied upon by the A.P.P. and the informant are either closed due to acquittal or withdrawal. (xiv) According to the law of land as it exists and is restated in Sanjay Chandra’s case (2011 STPL (Web) 1006 SC) “liberty” and “bail” is a rule and “confinement” is an exception. Bail ought to be granted except in grave, serious and heinous offences. 12. The application is opposed by the prosecution on the following grounds:- (i) The accusation is very serious. (ii) The prosecution would be ready and willing to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis. (iii) The applicant has got criminal record and poses a threat by his mere presence and he is the kingpin of a racket of extortion in the matters of development of properties at Bhusawal. (ii) The prosecution would be ready and willing to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis. (iii) The applicant has got criminal record and poses a threat by his mere presence and he is the kingpin of a racket of extortion in the matters of development of properties at Bhusawal. (iv) The person to whom the extortion money was paid and from whom said money was recovered during raid is a man without means. He has received the money only because of his being the agent of the applicant or as his representative. The applicant’s involvement is strongly established from the evidence collected by the prosecution. (v) The illicit business is essentially done secretly and evidence of conduct of applicant has to be viewed and appreciated from that angle. The case cannot be regarded as trivial offence by barely putting a finger as to the offence being triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. (vi) The offence is serious considering the magnitude of impact and not the triability by Magistrate. Therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 13. The informant who has appeared to assist the prosecution has urged the following points :- (i) Large number of municipal files were found in the house of the applicant. (ii) It cannot be believed that President of the Municipal Council needs to retain such large number of files at the residence. (iii) Applicant has given threat to the informant to kill him and destroy the utility of property having residential and commercial potential which was purchased by the complainant. (iv) The applicant has even threatened to kill the informant if he opposes the applicant’s design. (v) The applicant was working as defacto President of Municipal Council. (vi) The minute books were kept blank at the behest of the applicant. The applicant commanded control and terror over the municipal employees. He practically ruled the working of the council and used the political nexus and the power for extortion. (vii) Releasing applicant on bail would mean licensing him to continue with the illegalities which is his avowed occupation and a usual activity. (viii) Therefore, case at hand is liable to be treated as a matter which is serious, unlike a case of trivial or stray offender who commits crime for paltry gains by doing petty misdemeanor. (ix) Applicant’s nature and personality is that of an unscrupulous criminal using the political office for gains. (viii) Therefore, case at hand is liable to be treated as a matter which is serious, unlike a case of trivial or stray offender who commits crime for paltry gains by doing petty misdemeanor. (ix) Applicant’s nature and personality is that of an unscrupulous criminal using the political office for gains. This characteric renders acts of the applicant far graver in magnitude. (x) What needs to be seen is the attitude and criminality underlying. Therefore, the crime subject matter needs to be viewed as far graver than it is represented, and therefore the application deserves to be dismissed. 14. In the light of submissions, this Court has to examine the entitlement of the applicant for bail. 15. According to the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, would at the most be an offence of extortion by offering threats including threats to life and property. Considering that the offence is triable by Magistrate and the sentence would never reach to the optical, and because it is not a grave offence, bail ought to follow as a rule. 16. The point of view of state and of the complainant is that the mentality of accused will have to be seen and not the probable sentence as suggested by applicant. According to them, the gravity will have to be fathomed from some effect of modus operandi and chain of acts which may be in the offing and which may assume far graver consequences from the offences in a chain to follow. 17. It is well known that crime is begotten out of anger, greed or passion. Out of these three, greed seems to be the factor propelling the crime in present case. Need of food and resource of livelihood, which is at times a circumstance which forces an offender to commit a crime is not a factor in the present case. 18. Accused/applicant and all his companion are well placed; their journey to the crime is not due to compulsion of need of a morsel. 19. Prima facie, present is a case of accused who are behind easy gains by extortion from those who are ostensibly involved in enterprise which profits them more and are enviable. 20. Extortion of the present category is therefore unlike an act of petty extortion, however, unjustified, but out of compulsion and need or trivial in magnitude. 19. Prima facie, present is a case of accused who are behind easy gains by extortion from those who are ostensibly involved in enterprise which profits them more and are enviable. 20. Extortion of the present category is therefore unlike an act of petty extortion, however, unjustified, but out of compulsion and need or trivial in magnitude. The greed and craving for taking away by extortion others’ profits stands on a pedestal which renders such crime graver in its class. 21. The seriousness of present case therefore is in the greed and not in the category of the point of view of penal law. Applicant, who is husband of the President of Municipal Council, prima facie is seen involved in misusing the said political office held by his wife. By misuse of office, a white collar crime is being committed. Therefore, the crime subject matter is a class part and requires to be viewed from a different point of view. 22. Therefore, the offence of extortion though triable by Magistrate, when committed for earning reaches out of it, stand on total different footing rendering such offence graver and nearly heinous. The heinousness needs to be viewed from an added dimension in contrast with connotation of the term “heinous offence” as understood in contemporary use of said term. 23. On the very face of it, regarding the nature of accusations and the status of parties, which at this stage cannot be disputed, prima facie the offence subject matter is grave amongst the gravest. 24. Present case needs to be seen as a specimen amongst the generics of the nexus between politics and crime. Few are the cases where the moan of victim of crime is audible and visible to the extent of cognizance by law. 25. The offences of present specie are hatchlings of the offences which may be begotten and would take draconian form, if not nipped in the beginning. Gravity is thus to be visualized more than that perceived objectively on the yardstick of penal aspect from the provisions of Penal Code. 26. This Court is satisfied that prima facie offence subject matter is of very serious nature. Standard argument that the accused will not flee from law, does not create a ladder for him to walk up to the bail. 26. This Court is satisfied that prima facie offence subject matter is of very serious nature. Standard argument that the accused will not flee from law, does not create a ladder for him to walk up to the bail. What the applicant may probably do if released on bail appears to be far graver from what he would suffer if he remains in jail. 27. In these premises and from what prima facie appears, the solemn promise of the accused that he shall remain away from Jalgaon District, does not constitute adequate assurance that accused/applicant shall not indulge in offences during liberty. The guild through which the applicant has been operating still seems to be intact. Therefore, applicant’s liberty seems to be potentially far more in degree of injuriousness than injury to his liberty. 28. The case at hand therefore falls under the exception where bail ought not to be granted. Present is not a case of sheer deception to the exchequer where the magnitude of deception too was not considered factor adverse to grant of bail as seen in Sanjay Chandra’s case (supra). Here is a case of threat to life and property and value of life which has come in shadow of threat cannot be evaluated nor can it be secured. Lesser injury therefore would be in loss of liberties than life and order. 29. This application is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. 30. It shall suffice to observe that the observations made herein are per the necessity of gravity in the wake of consideration of prayer for bail. Merit of case in the trial shall always be governed by the facts as may be proved.