Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers. 2. These are applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants are arrested in Crime No.139 of 2014 on 2nd March, 2014 registered at Mulund Police Station for offence punishable under Section 395, 397, 385, 342, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 9th May, 2014. 3. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is that on 1st March, 2014 Ravindra Bandu Varpe lodged a report at the police station contending therein that he is a friend of Shankar Khedekar (applicant in BA 1631 of 2014). They are co-accused in a Criminal Case where they are charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the year 2010, he had started security agency in the name and style of Pushpak Detective and Services Private Limited. He had purchased a Scorpio Car for the said business bearing registration No.MH1-1A-E-7777. The said vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant. He had to close the said agency in the year 2012 and thereafter he earned his living by driving an auto-rickshaw and also assisting his brother for running auto parts shop. Since Shankar Khedekar was his friend, he used to take the said car on friendly terms. He used to meet them whenever there is date in court. On 17th February, 2014 Shankar Khedekar had requested to give the motor car. He did not return the said motor car inspite of repeated request made by the complainant. On 26/2/2014 he again requested Shankar Khedekar to return the car and at that time, he was assured that when they would meet on 28/2/2014 to attend the criminal case in the court at Mulund, he would return the car. On 28/2/2014 the matter was adjourned and was scheduled on 15/3/2014. On that day, the complainant had seen that the car was parked near Ganesh Temple on the other side and Shankar Khedekar had not responded to him and therefore, he followed Shankar Khedekar till Ganesh Temple. Thereafter, Shankar Khedekar had requested him to board the car. Shankar Khedekar alongwith Pravin Patil and others had taken the complainant to various places. They stopped the car near Dnyansadhana College. Thereafter, Shankar Khedekar had requested him to board the car. Shankar Khedekar alongwith Pravin Patil and others had taken the complainant to various places. They stopped the car near Dnyansadhana College. At that time, Shankar Khedekar started driving the car and Vikram had boarded the said car. The car was stopped near Rutu Enclave and then Shankar Khedekar and Sanjay Gurav had dragged the complainant out of the car. They had snatched the pocket containing visiting cards of the complainant as well as cell phone. Shankar had assaulted him with fists and kick blows. Anand Patil had taken bamboo stick and assaulted the complainant on his forearms. Suresh and Pappu had also assaulted him in similar manner. Thereafter they again asked him to board the car and had taken him via Ghodbunder road. Shankar had taken away golden ring from his finger. Vikram had purchased wine and they had all consumed wine. He was again assaulted with bamboo and then he was coerced to sign on T.T.O. Form. They demanded Rs.25 Lakhs from the complainant. They had taken away his documents and other belongings. He was threatened to fetch Rs.25 Lakhs on the next date. Hence, he had lodged report on the basis of which offence was registered. 4. The injury certificate issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay shows that the complainant was examined on 28th February, 2014. He had sustained swelling on his black eye, bruise and swelling tenderness over forearms and left upper arm, on right knee. Bruises are on left knee and left thigh. Abrasion on left lumbar region. Abrasion and bruise and tenderness are all over back, thoracic & lumbar. They were simple injuries. The offence is registered under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. However, there could not appear any serious injury which would attract the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Primarily the complainant happens to be a friend of the applicant Shankar Khedekar. No doubt some incident has taken place. Learned Counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of Avinash Varpe, who happens to be the brother of the complainant. He had disclosed to the police that his brother had informed him that he was liable to pay Rs.25 Lakhs to Shankar Khedekar. No doubt some incident has taken place. Learned Counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of Avinash Varpe, who happens to be the brother of the complainant. He had disclosed to the police that his brother had informed him that he was liable to pay Rs.25 Lakhs to Shankar Khedekar. He was demanding the same and since the complainant had not responded to his demands, he alongwith others had assaulted him with fists and kick blows and then with bamboo which was lying close by. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants herein were not armed with any weapons. They had assaulted the complainant with some bamboos which were lying close by. It is not denied that the same incident had taken place. 6. Learned APP submits that this was not the mode of recovering the amount and that the complainant was assaulted by the applicants. There were abrasions on his person and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. It is further submitted by the learned APP that the applicants have criminal antecedents as they are attending a case under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Mulund. The complainant happens to be the co-accused in the said case. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh & anr. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 382 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that criminal antecedents cannot be the sole ground for rejecting an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after filing of the charge-sheet. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the relevant consideration for grant of bail. 8. Upon perusal of the charge-sheet and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicants, this Court has observed that basically the complainant and the applicant Shankar Khedekar were good friends. The complainant had given the car to the applicant Shankar Khedekar. He had not returned the car. This would not attract Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further pertinent to note that although it is the case of the complainant that he was forced to sign the T.T.O. Form, the said forms were not misused by the applicants. He had not returned the car. This would not attract Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further pertinent to note that although it is the case of the complainant that he was forced to sign the T.T.O. Form, the said forms were not misused by the applicants. They were found in the car when the car was seized on 5th March, 2014 from the custody of the applicant in Criminal Application No.1720 of 2014 i.e. Avinash Sonawane. It cannot be said that Section 395 or Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code would be attracted to the applicant in Criminal Application No.1720 of 2014. However, the learned APP submits that supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 2nd March, 2014 which indicated that the applicant Avinash Sonawane was driving the car at the relevant time. However, this would be at variance with the first information report and hence, cannot be taken into consideration. 9. In view of the above observations, the applicants have made out prima facie case for grant of bail. 10. The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and shall not be taken into consideration either for quashing of the FIR or at the trial of the present case. Hence the following order : ORDER (i) The applications are allowed. The applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not leave Mumbai/Thane without prior permission of the Investigating Officer. They shall give their cell phone and landline numbers to the investigating officer and attend each every date at the time of trial. Upon failure to comply with the above conditions and to attend the trial on two consecutive dates by the applicants, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. 11. The Applications are disposed of on the above terms.