1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4472 OF 2009 Ashok Boricha .... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra .... Respondent. Ms Leela Malu for the applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Applicant is a resident of Pariwar Co-operative Housing Society. He has been arrested on 19/08/2009 in connection with the offence which is registered on 25/02/2009 by Kalwa Police Station vide C.R. No.69 of 2009. 2 3. On 29/10/2005, pursuant to directions which were given by Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Officers of Thane Municipal Corporation were assigned the work of demolition of the unauthorized and illegal construction and, accordingly, these Officers had undertaken the work of demolition of a building named “Vikrant Towers” which was constructed by a builder and developer Altaf Sayyed. Various proceedings were pending in the Court and an order was passed, restraining the Corporation from demolishing the said building. However, the order of status quo was vacated on 28/10/2005 and, accordingly, Corporation decided to demolish the said building on 29/10/2005. The Corporation had also taken help of police and, accordingly, some Police Officers had accompanied the demolition squad. When demolition work commenced, occupants of the building were urging the members of demolition squad not to start work of demolition and some of the occupants obstructed them from going ahead with demolition work. The occupants viz. Ganesh Gaikwad, Prasad Bankar, Ajit Mukadam, Santosh Shelke and Pappu Gulab were preventing demolition squad from carrying out demolition. Initially, they threatened to 3 jump from the higher floors of the building and, thereafter, they threatened that they would set themselves on fire. However, despite these threats, demolition work commenced and they moved up on 3rd and 4th floors. At that time, one Prasad Bankar and Ganesh Gaikwad poured kerosene on their person and set themselves ablaze. Prasad Bankar tried to catch hold of one Sunil Shankar Jadhav who is also co-accused in this case and who was working in Thane Municipal Corporation. At that time, bodyguards of the said Sunil Shankar Jadhav rescued him. However, the said Sunil Shankar Jadhav and these two bodyguards sustained burn injuries. An FIR was lodged by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner vide C.R. No.167 of 2005 with Naupada Police Station under sections 147, 148, 332 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code against the husband of the present complainant and others. The said Prasad Bankar is the brother of the complainant whereas Ganesh Gaikwad is his nephew. At the relevant time, two persons who had sustained burn injuries were admitted in the hospital and dying declaration of Prasad Bankar was recorded who had stated in his dying declaration that since Thane Municipal 4 Corporation was demolishing his building, he set himself on fire. Statements of various other persons were also recorded in which they had reiterated the said fact. In view of these statements two accidental death reports came to be recorded and an offence was registered against some persons who had obstructed demolition squad from demolishing the said building. It also appears that, thereafter, a fresh complaint was lodged by wife of the builder Mrs.Vaishali Shivaji Adik and which was registered as C.R. No.169 of 2009 for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 304, 143 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The present applicant was arrested alongwith other accused Sunil Jadhav. 4. It is submitted that the statements of two Police Officers who were also injured in the said incident when deceased Prasad had set himself on fire and caught hold of the said Sunil Jadhav, were not recorded in this investigation. The other accused viz. Sunil Jadhav has been released on bail by this Court (Coram: A.P. Deshpande, J.) by order dated 22/09/2009 passed in Criminal Application No. 5 3841 of 2009. 5. I have perused the said order. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the entire history and circumstances under which the present complaint was lodged by wife of the builder. The present applicant, therefore, in my view, is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. No explanation has been given as to why statements of the two Police Officers who were sent alongwith the squad and who were also injured, were not recorded. The learned Single Judge has also observed that statements of these two witnesses were recorded in 2005 and their version is exactly contrary to the version given by witnesses in this case. In the present case, in the FIR and statements of other occupants, it is alleged that the present applicant caught hold of those two persons and one other co- accused poured kerosene and set them on fire. This statement is directly contrary to the statement recorded by other two Police Officers in 2005. Taking into consideration these peculiar facts and circumstances, applicant deserves to be released on bail, particularly because charge-sheet has 6 now been filed and investigation is over. 6. Applicant, therefore, be released on bail in C.R. No.69 of 2009 in the sum of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant, initially, shall furnish cash bail and within two weeks thereafter shall furnish sureties as directed by this Court. Applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station once in a month. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)