1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3159 OF 2010 Sk. Mohd. Giyasoddin s/o Mohd. Fayazoddin ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, advocate for the applicant Mr. N.B. Khandare, Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This application is filed for anticipatory bail in connection with crime No. 172 of 2010, registered with Bhagyanagar police Station, Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 118, 120-B, 217, 218, 219, 221, 465 and 466 of I.P.C. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that at the relevant time the present applicant was working as Police Sub Inspector. He was not in charge of police station or in charge of the station diary. He further submitted that the alleged offence took place 2 on 28.8.2006 and for the first time, the complaint in question is lodged on 26.6.2010. He invited my attention to the contents of the complaint and submitted that even according to the complainant at the relevant time he had been to the Superintendent of Police agitating his grievance that there are some overwriting in entry Nos. 34, 35 and 36 in station diary maintained by Bhagyanagar police station. However, the cognizance of his complaint was not taken. According to the counsel for the applicant, the offence in question is registered after four years from the date of alleged offence and this itself entitles the applicant to seek protection for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that this Court has acquitted all accused persons in crime No. 133 of 2006, which was registered with Shivaji Nagar police station. It is further submitted that the present applicant is retired from service in the month of July, 2010. If at all the investigating Officer wish to investigate into the matter, the applicant would make himself available for investigation. The entire record is in the custody of the concerned police station and thus no custodial interrogation is necessary. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the application and submitted that the applicant is no way concerned with the alleged offence, therefore, he is entitled for protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. According to him, the complaint filed by the complainant cannot be said to be the F.I.R. as the complainant himself has stated in the complaint that the report was lodged with the Superintendent of Police in the year 2006 itself. 3 3 Learned Public Prosecutor relying on the investigation papers and the statements of witnesses, who were working with Bhagyanagar Police Station at the relevant time, has submitted that the applicant is involved in the said offence of overwriting the entry Nos. 34, 35 and 36. According to the Public Prosecutor, present applicant alongwith co-accused facilitated the main accused Faizal so as to secure the acquittal in his favour in crime No. 133 of 2006 registered with Shivaji Nagar police station. Learned public prosecutor has also invited my attention to the reasons recorded by the Sessions Court while rejecting the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor has also invited my attention to the copy of station diary maintained by Bhagyanagar police station at the relevant time and contended that the said entries were made in the station diary with an intention to render help to the accused persons in crime No. 133 of 2006 registered with Shivaji Nagar police station. According to him, this act of the applicant is nothing but to help the accused in crime No. 133 of 2006 so as to create evidence that the said accused was not present at the relevant time at the spot of incident occurred in said crime. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the grounds agitated by the applicant for anticipatory bail are available for seeking regular bail but certainly not for seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. 4 4 I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. I have also perused the copies of the investigation papers, which are made available for perusal. 5 On careful perusal of para 8, 9 and 10 of the order passed by the Adhoc Additonal Sessions Judge, Nanded on 28.7.2010, it clearly appears that the trial court after taking into consideration the material which were available before him has rejected the bail application of the present applicant alongwith other co-accused, who were involved in the crime. On independent scrutiny of the investigation papers made available and upon perusal of para 8, 9 and 10 of the order passed by the Sessions Court, in my opinion, the applicant does not deserve the protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. However, looking to the facts of the case that the incident took place in the year 2006 and the crime is registered in the year 2010, it would be desirable that the Investigating Officer in the present case if wants to arrest the applicant herein, he shall give 24 hours prior notice to the applicant. 6 With the above observations, application is rejected. Interim relief stands vacated. *****