1 Cri-A-2921&2922-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2921 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2922 OF 2010 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2921 OF 2010 Chandrakant Parshuram Birje .. Applicant Vs. Sunilkumar Krushnakumar Singh & Anr. .. Respondents Along with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2922 OF 2010 Chandrakant Parshuram Birje .. Applicant Vs. Nirajsingh Sundersingh Thakur & Anr. .. Respondents Shri Sandeep Babar, Advocate, for the applicant. Smt. S.D.Shinde, APP, for the respondent No.2 - State. Shri Ayaz Khan, Advocate, for respondent No.1 (in Appln.No.2922/2010). CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 18th November, 2010. P.C. 1. Both these Applications are filed by the original complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the accused Sunilkumar Singh and accused Nirajsingh Thakur, who are respondent No.1 in these two Applications respectively. 2 Cri-A-2921&2922-10.sxw 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Admittedly, the applicant Chandrakant Birje and Nirajsingh Thakur, who is respondent No.1 in Cri. Application No.2922 of 2010 have old enmity because of commercial and other family matters. Cross cases were also filed by them against each other even prior to the incident of this case. The facts of the present case are that on 19.4.2010 at about 12.40 hrs. the present applicant/complainant approached P.I. Chavan at Ghatkopar unit of Anti Narcotic Cell and informed him that he had received information from his informant that Nirajsingh Thakur had asked one Sayyed Gaus and Abdul Rehman Shaikh to falsely implicate the complainant in some criminal case. Said Sayyed Gaus and Abdul Rehman were acting through accused No.1 Sunilkumar Singh, who is respondent No.1 in Cri. Application No.2921/2010, for the purpose of falsely implicating the complainant in a criminal case. Accordingly, they had asked him to plant Charas and fire-arms in a Ford Car bearing No.MH-06-AN-9855 belonging to the complainant at Chembur Ramtekdi in front of Sargam Apartment. This was to happen at 17 or 17.30 hrs. Accordingly, a trap was laid by P.I. Chavan. At the relevant time, accused No.1 Sunilkumar Singh came there. He was nabbed and during personal search, 500 gms. of Charas, two country made 3 Cri-A-2921&2922-10.sxw pistols, two live cartridges and cash of Rs.200/- were recovered from him. These articles were seized from him. He allegedly disclosed before the police that all these articles were supplied to him by Mushtak @ Mustafa for keeping them in the said car. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant and the seizure of the fire-arms, ammunitions and Charas, Police registered Crime No.106/2010 under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the Arms Act. Accused No.1 Sunilkumar Singh was granted bail by the learned Special Judge by the order dated 14.5.2010 subject to certain conditions, including the condition that on every Wednesday and Friday he would attend the office of the Investigating Agency. Accused No.2 Nirajsingh was granted bail on 6.5.2010 with certain conditions, including the condition to attend the office of the Investigating Agency on every Wednesday and Friday. The learned APP has, on the previous occasion, after taking instructions from the investigating Officer, made a statement that the accused persons have been regularly attending the police station as per direction given by the trial Court and there has been no violation of the conditions of the bail so far. 4. The complainant has filed these two Applications for cancellation of bail on the ground that because of enmity, the accused had tried to falsely implicate the complainant in the cases under NDPS Act and Arms Act and if they 4 Cri-A-2921&2922-10.sxw remain on bail, there will be always danger that they may repeat the same story again and falsely implicate him in some case. As far as accused No.1 Sunilkumar Singh is concerned, though he has been served, he has not appeared before this Court. Accused No.2 Nirajsingh Thakur is represented by an Advocate and, according to him, the whole case is false and because of the old enmity, the complainant himself arranged the case just to harass accused No.2 Nirajsingh. He pointed out that Mushtak, who was part of the alleged conspiracy, to falsely implicate the complainant and who had allegedly supplied the Charas, fire-arms and ammunitions to accused No.1, was granted anticipatory bail and the complainant himself was a surety for him. This fact is not denied on behalf of the complainant. 5. The charge sheet is filed and the Special Court will have to proceed with the case on its own merits as per law. Therefore, it will not be desirable to go into merits minutely. But some facts need to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, there was old enmity between the complainant and the accused No.2 Nirajsingh and criminal cases were filed by both the parties against each other prior to this incident. As per the police case as well as the report lodged by the present complainant, the present complainant approached the Anti Narcotic Cell on 19.4.2010 at about 12.40 hrs. and he informed the police that as per the 5 Cri-A-2921&2922-10.sxw information received by him from his informant, accused no.2 Nirajsingh had given Supari or contract to Sayyed Gaus and Abdul Rehman to falsely implicate the complainant and as per that information, said Sayyed Gaus and Abdul Rehman had engaged accused No.1 Sunilsingh to implement that plan and to plant the drugs and the fire-arms in the car of the complainant. The drugs and the fire- arms were to be planted at about 17.00 or 17.30 hours on the same day in the particular car in front of Sargam Apartment. It is material to note that the complainant is not residing at that place in Sargam Apartment at Nityanand Road, Chembur. He resides in a different building near Marowali Municipal Corporation School, R.C. Road, Chembur as per the address given by him in his present application. It indicates that the conspirators and the culprits were aware well in advance, at least 5 hours before, that at about 5.30 p.m. the car belonging to the complainant would be parked in front of Sargam Apartment, Nityanand Road, and the accused No.1 would approach and plant the drugs and the weapons in the car. It is material to note that the complainant did not disclose the name of informant in his report. Accused No.1 Sunilkumar Singh allegedly went to the spot near Sargam Apartment and he was nabbed by the police with Charas, two country made pistols and two live cartridges and cash. On enquiry, he disclosed that these drugs and the weapons were supplied to him by one Mushtak. It shows that Mushtak was also part of that conspiracy. Said Mushtak applied for 6 Cri-A-2921&2922-10.sxw anticipatory bail which was granted. Very important and surprising fact is that when Mushtak appeared before the police with order of anticipatory bail, the complainant himself stood surety for him. Prima facie, it indicates that Mushtak was working for the complainant. 6. in view of these circumstances, part of the complainant himself in this whole episode is not beyond doubt. At this stage, it will not be appropriate to make any comment on the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused No.2 Nirajsingh that the complainant himself had arranged through Mushtak and as a result of that conspiracy, accused No.1 Sunilkumar Singh, who is a young boy of 22 years and a paid labourer, must have been given the weapons and the drugs and as per the previous arrangement, he was caught by police and on the basis of that accused No.2 Nirajsingh was sought to be implicated in this case. Whole case is murkier and the conduct of the complainant himself is not beyond suspicion. In view of these circumstances, I do not see any justification to set aside the orders granting bail to both the accused persons. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Applications stand rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)