1 ABA 370.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 370 OF 2011 Kamlesh Narayan R. Shukla. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra at the instance of Bhandup Police Station. ... Respondent. Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay i/b. M/s. Law Juris for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. Mr. M.D. Barman for the Original Complainant. Mr. Battu Tatyaba Mohite, PSI, Bhandup Police Station. CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 9th JUNE 2011. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Upadhyay, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mrs. Newton, learned APP for the State and Mr. Barman, learned Advocate for the first informant. 2. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 28th April 2011, the C.D. In respect of the T.V. Footage was viewed by the Investigating Officer and he has submitted his report in the matter stating that the Applicant is seen participating in 2 ABA 370.11.sxw the offence and assaulting the first informant. Thus, prima- fact, the involvement of the Applicant in the alleged offences cannot be doubted. 3. However, I find that except the offences punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. And 307 of the I.P.C. all the other offences, allegedly committed by the Applicant are, bailable. So far as the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. is concerned, it cannot be said to be prima-facie disclosed against the present Applicant, on the basis of the solitary incident, that took place on 7.3.2011. As regards the allegation of an offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., it is significant to note that such a claim was made only on the basis of a supplementary statement of the first informant recorded on 2.4.2011. If the version of the first informant in the FIR is examined, it is difficult to hold that prima-facie, a case of an offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out. The assault was, obviously, for the purpose of driving the first informant away from the place where the alleged second marriage was to take place. There are no injuries which would suggest extreme brutality or a severe attack so as to support the allegation of an offence punishable 3 ABA 370.11.sxw under Section 307 of I.P.C. 4. Though, ordinarily, in the facts and circumstances, as reflected from the F.I.R., the Applicant would not be entitled for sympathy from this Court, the fact remains that the invocation of provision of Section 307 of I.P.C. appears to be deliberate, without sufficient basis, and only with the object of ensuring that the Applicant remains detained in custody. 5. When such is the position, it would be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant. This is more so because the husband of the first informant – a co-accused – is already in custody. 6. Moreover, the Applicant was already granted interim protection by the order dated 28th April 2011. The anticipatory bail application is, therefore, allowed. 7. In the event of his arrest, the Applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety in like amount, on the condition that the Applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station every day between 5.00 p.m. to 8.00 4 ABA 370.11.sxw p.m., for a period of one week, commencing from tomorrow and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer. The Applicant shall not contact, meet or approach any of the witnesses in the case, in any manner, whatsoever. (A.M. THIPSAY,J.)