(1) Criminal Application No. 3945 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3945 of 2011 Sahebrao Shankar Kate, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Social work, R/o. Lal Talki Baraskar Chall, .. Applicant Sarjepura, Ahmednagar. (Original accused) versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. A.V. Palve, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. D.R. Korde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER 2011 (2) Criminal Application No. 3945 of 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Issue notice to the respondent. 2. Learned APP Mr. D.R. Korde accepts notice for the respondent. 3. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, and heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. I-265/2011, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 5. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Tarachand s/o. Vishwanath Kasbe, on 29th July 2011, in respect of occurrence of the incident on the same day at about 10.00 a.m. It is alleged that the complainant is working as Office Assistant in Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Vikas Mahamandal, Market Yard, Ahmednagar (Government of Maharashtra Undertaking), since (3) Criminal Application No. 3945 of 2011 last one year. He attended his duty on 29th July 2011 at about 10.00 a.m. and was present in the office. However, at about 15.10 hours, when he was working on his table and was doing the Government work, the applicant entered into his office and gave abuses to the complainant in loud voice. On hearing the said abuses, office Manager Mr. Arne came out of his cabin. It is also alleged that the applicant herein was armed with one electric tube bar and he raised the same on the person of the complainant for being blown on him, but the complainant caught hold of his hand. Thereupon, the applicant manhandled the complainant and obstructed the functioning of Government work. Thereafter, the office Manager Mr. Arne and other citizens who were present in the office, namely, Mr. Gade, Mr. Ghorpade and Mr. Anna Vairagar, intervened and took out the applicant from the office. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint with the Police personnel at about 10.15 p.m. on the same day. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant canvassed that although the alleged incident occurred on 15.10 hours on 29-7-2011, the complaint came to be lodged at about 10.15 p.m. i.e. after delay of 7 hours and the said delay has not been explained by the complainant. It is also canvassed that bare perusal of the contents of the complaint reflects that there is no mens rea on the part of the applicant herein. Besides, it is (4) Criminal Application No. 3945 of 2011 submitted that the applicant and complainant belong to the same caste and the complainant has lodged the present complaint falsely implicating the applicant herein. 7. Learned APP for the respondent countered the said arguments and opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the occurrence of the incident was witnessed by office Manager Mr. Arne, as well as, other five eye witnesses, and their statements have been recorded during the course of investigation which amount to incriminating piece of evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted that if anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, there is possibility of tampering with the witnesses and/or influencing upon witnesses at the hands of the applicant. It is further canvassed that the investigation has not been complete so far and the same is incomplete, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 8. After considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the name of the applicant has been reflected in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to him in the occurrence of the incident. Moreover, it is also apparent from the contents of the FIR, that the applicant herein obstructed functions of the Government (5) Criminal Application No. 3945 of 2011 work and manhandled the complainant herein. Moreover, there are five eye witnesses, namely, Krishna s/o. Bhima Gathe, Sudhakar s/o. Navshera Arne, Dnyaneshwar s/o. Lahu Ghorpade, Anna s/o. Yosef Vairagar and Ajay s/o. Arun Salve, who witnessed occurrence of the incident, and their statements apparently corroborate with the contents of the FIR, which is an incriminating piece of evidence against the applicant herein. Besides, apprehension is posed by the learned APP, that if the present application is allowed, there is possibility of tampering of the evidence and influencing upon witnesses and the said apprehension cannot be overlooked and ignored. 9. Having comprehensive view of the matter, and considering accusations made against the applicant herein, it is apparent that there is no question of false implication of the applicant in the alleged crime. The investigation is incomplete, and hence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further progress in the investigation in proper manner, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 10. In the result, present Criminal Application lacks merits, and therefore, stands dismissed, and is disposed of finally. 11. However, it is made clear that the above observations (6) Criminal Application No. 3945 of 2011 are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3945