1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5760 OF 2009 Aniruddha Uttam Seolekar .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra (through P.I., Hadapsar Police Station, Pune) .. Respondent Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with Amit Desai , Senior Advocate with Shrikant Shivade, Mahesh Rajadhyaksha and M.S.Mohite for applicant Mr.V.S.Sawant, Special P.P., with Mrs.A.A.Mane & Mrs.P.P.Shinde for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13th January, 2010. P.C.: 1] Heard Mr.Gupte, learned Senior Counsel for applicant and learned Special P.P., for State. Perused the affidavit so also the investigation papers produced for my perusal. 2] The applicant’s application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the trial court and this is how the instant application. 3] Mr.Gupte, learned Senior Counsel for applicant invited my 2 attention to the order below Exh.4 on Criminal Misc.Application No.4372 of 2009. He submits that the learned Trial Judge at the Interim stage in this very application had granted interim protection by observing that prima facie, the material on record does not make out an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. The learned Judge has noted the argument of the applicant that the complainant has not sustained any injuries, that there is a delay in lodging FIR and the story of the complainant of wrongful confinement is not believable. The learned Judge has finally observed that there is nothing to show that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. There is no weapon used in the crime. 4] In such circumstances, at the final stage, denying the anticipatory bail is not justified. Inviting my attention to para 11 of the order passed by the learned Judge, Mr.Gupte submits that this is an incident wherein the applicant builder had completed a project, flat purchasers had some grievances and complaints which were highlighted in the news report and agitated by the same, the applicant called the news reporters at his home. There was scuffle and allegedly the news reporters were forced to give explanation/ apology for the report. However, later on the applicant is 3 stated to have attended newspaper’s office and tendered a written apology for the incident. There has been no change from the circumstances which have been noted at the interim stage by the learned Judge. A perusal of para 4 of the order granting interim bail dated 14th December 2009 and the para 11 of the final order dated 18th December 2009 would show that there is nothing which could be stated to have changed these events and circumstances. Therefore, within a period of four days, there was no reason to vacate the interim order and dismiss the application as a whole. 5] On the other hand, learned Special PP for the State has invited my attention to the reply of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and has stated that the applicant had a strong motive to punish the complainant. The incident is corroborated by medical evidence and by the statement of Sandip Jagdale and Sureshchandra Padhye, there is a strong case of applicant being guilty of an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC has been made out. The applicant is an influential person and if custodial interrogation is not permitted, it is likely that the entire investigation will suffer and would not be complete. This is a case where a person stated to be a builder and influential and rich in the society has threatened the news reporters of a newspaper openly and had attempted to kill them in 4 the garb of giving an explanation to them. The incident took place in his house. Such events have been admitted in the statement of accused himself when he gave written apology in the newspapers’ office. For all these reasons, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Reliance is also placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2009(2) Crimes 278. (Ratan Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) 6] With the assistance of the learned Counsel for parties I have perused the application and the annexures thereto, including the copy of the order at the ad-interim / interim stage made by the trial court. At para 4 of the order dated 14th December 2009, a copy of which is handed over to me, the trial court observes thus:- “4. The learned Advocate for the applicants sought the copies of the report of the investigation officer filed on record to which objection was raised by the learned DGP. It was held that the applicants have no right to seek any document or report and liberty to the submissions made by the learned DGP.” 5 7] Thereafter, in the final order at para 11, the learned Judge observes that custodial interrogation is necessary. The learned Judge has made a reference in para 11 to the statement of applicant No.2 recorded on 16th December 2009. He further has made a reference to the argument that if the informant and another person were assaulted by eight/ ten people, obviously, there would be number of injuries on the person of the informant. At the same time, he refers to the allegations from the very statement that the applicant No.1 allegedly pressed neck of the informant. The entire discussion in para 11 shows that the learned Judge has not assigned any reasons as to why he wishes to depart from the prima facie findings recorded four days prior to his final order. All that he observes is that the manner in which throttling was done or its sufficiency to cause death etc. are matters of investigation. In the same breath, the learned Judge observes that there is prima facie material to connect the applicant No.1 with the offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 8] Statements of concerned persons including the informant have been perused by me. Considering the observations in the order passed by the Vacation Judge, I have also perused the medical papers. To my mind, this is not a case where any custodial interrogation is necessary. Prima facie, 6 both the incident and events have been set out. The involvement of persons therein has been spoken about in the statements recorded. Prima facie from the available papers, it is clear that there is no weapon involved in the incident. It is not as if the learned Judge has denied the anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicants are persons with criminal background and, therefore, not likely to cooperate with the investigation or would not be available at the trial. On the other hand there is prima facie substance in the contentions of Mr.Gupte that the applicants have a regular business in the city of Pune and firmly rooted therein. There is no apprehension of their absconding or not being available at the investigation or otherwise. Further, by imposing appropriate conditions, the learned Judge could have continued the order dated 14th December 2009. 9] In such circumstances, this application is allowed with the following order:- (a) In the event of applicant’s arrest in C.R.No.719 of 2009 registered with Hadapsar Police Station, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs with surety in the like 7 amount. The applicants shall report to Hadapsar police station once in every fifteen days between 10 a.m. And 12 noon till the charge sheet is filed. Applicants shall not go out of State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the lower court and without the travel programme being furnished in advance to the concerned police station. (b) The applicant has already handed over the passport to Hadapsar police station. The applicant at liberty to seek prior permission of the concerned court in case he has to travel abroad. (c) This order does not prevent the applicant from applying for return of original passport for the limited purpose of its renewal and the concerned police station will return the original passport on the applicants depositing a certified true copy thereof together with an undertaking that the original shall be returned after it is duly renewed. (d) Original documents directed to be deposited with the 8 Registry of this Court be returned to the concerned I.O., on production of a copy of this order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)