* 1 * Cri.Appln-3678/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3678 OF 2010 [APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL] Niyamat Subhanallah Chaudhary and anr. ........ Applicants : V E R S U S : State of Maharashtra ....... Respondent ********** Mr. V.V. Purwant, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for State-respondent. Mr. Subhash Jha i/by. Law Global, advocate for the Intervenor in Cri.Appln-454/2010. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The two applicants herein apply for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No.I-513 of 2009 registered with Mumbra Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 367, 420, 506(2) read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The complainant in this case had filed an application for intervention which has been * 2 * Cri.Appln-3678/2010 allowed and the complainant is heard alongwith the applicant and the State. 2. The incident in connection with which the complaint was filed is dated 14th December, 2009. As per C.R. No.513 of 2009 dated 19th December, 2009 the applicants called the complainant in their office, threatened, abused and assaulted him. The complaint is filed against in all five persons i.e. the applicants herein, one Sharukh Ismail Khan and two unknown persons. The complaint alleges that applicant no.1 had shown revolver to the complainant and threatened to kill him, whereas, applicant no.2 and Sharukh had assaulted him with a hockey stick on his right hand and caused a fracture injury to his hand. The two unknown persons also assaulted him. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the version of the incident alleged by the complainant is seen to be varying over a period of time in matters of its every detail. Admittedly, on 14th December, 2009 itself the complainant had approached the police complaining of assault by the applicants herein. Mumbra Police Station registered a non-cognizable complaint No. 2726 dated 14th * 3 * Cri.Appln-3678/2010 December, 2009 only against the applicants herein. This complaint alleges that the applicants herein had abused and assaulted the complainant with a bat . Then, as the complainant felt that the “ ” police had not taken proper cognizance of his complaint, he approached the Police Commissioner, who directed Mumbra Police Station to make an enquiry into the complaint. Thereafter, the police registered F.I.R being C.R. No.I-505 of 2009 on 16th December, 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, this time against the applicants, Sharukh Khan and one unknown person. In the statement of the complainant accompanying the F.I.R., it was alleged that applicant no.1 had assaulted on his right hand with a hockey stick, whereas, Sharukh Khan and the unknown persons had assaulted him with fists. There was no specific allegation made against applicant no.2. Not being satisfied with this complaint registered by the police, the complainant filed a private complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ist Court, Thane being Criminal Case No.2123 of 2009 against the applicants, Sharukh Khan and two unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 367, 420, * 4 * Cri.Appln-3678/2010 506(2) read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. In this complaint the complainant alleged for the first time that applicant no.1 had threatened him by pointing a revolver to his head, applicants no.2 and 3 assaulted him with hockey stick and the two unknown persons abused and assaulted him with fists. There is a further allegation made that the applicant no.1 had slapped him on the face three to four times. After the incident, the complainant had gone to Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Rughnalay, Thane for medical treatment. There he gave the history of injury on his person as assault by unknown persons. The injury shows hair line fracture of greater tuberosity of humerus. It is thus seen that the complainant has gone improving the version of assault in the matters of the persons involved, the weapons used, roles attributed to each person and also the extent of assault. 4. Mr. Jha, the learned counsel for the Intervenor, submits that the apparent inconsistency or improvement seen in the complaints filed by the complainant are due to the deliberate conduct of the police. He submits that the applicants are influential persons who * 5 * Cri.Appln-3678/2010 had prevailed over the police to dilute the complaint of assault made by the complainant. Even if the contention of the complainant is to be accepted that the police had not taken his complaint seriously and registered the same only as an non-congizable complaint, when at the intervention of the Commissioner of police, an FIR came to be registered, nothing could have prevented the complainant from giving all the details of the assault in his statement made to the police. The improvement made at every stage is a fact which is required to be taken into consideration. Mr. Jha, however submits, that while considering an application for bail, the court cannot make a detailed and in-depth analysis of the material on record giving a finding on it s acceptability or ’ otherwise, which is essentially a matter of trial. In support of his submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nira Radia V/S. Dheeraj Singha and Another reported in (2006) 9 S.C.C. page 760. There cannot be dispute about this proposition. However, in the instant case, there is no need to make an in-depth analysis of the material because it is obvious from the material before the court that there is change in the version of the * 6 * Cri.Appln-3678/2010 complainant at different stages. 5. When the complainant filed a private complaint, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 19th December 2009 directed Mumbra Police Station to investigate into the matter as per law. On that date itself, Mumbra Police Station then lodged second F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-513 of 2009. The learned counsel for the applicants, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony V/S. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in AI.R. 2001 S.C. page 2637, rightly submits that there can be no second F.I.R. in respect of the same cognizable offence, same incident or occurrence. 6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application is therefore allowed. In the event of the arrest of the applicants in connection with C.R. No.I-513 of 2009 registered with Mumbra Police Station, they be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 7 * Cri.Appln-3678/2010