1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 230 OF 2011 Rohidas Bhauraoji Mohite Vs. State of Mah. PSO PS Wardha Distt. Wardha Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order Shri R. N. Khare Adv for applicant. Shri D. B. Patel APP for non applicant/State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. Dated: 15 th JULY, 2011. . This is an application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the applicant for issuing directions of his release on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 79 of 2011 registered by Police Station Wardha for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of Indian penal Code. On 03.03.2011 at about 11.30 p.m. one Seema Gaikwad aged 25 years came from Bhusaval to Wardha by rail. Then she boarded autorikshaw, her son was accompanying her. She wanted to go to Sevagram. However, taking advantage of the odd hours and the 2 fact that lady was alone, the autorikshaw driver started carrying her in different direction. When he started carrying her towards Paonar, she suspected foul play and, therefore, she jumped from the autorikshaw along with her son. She fell down. The autorikshaw driver robbed of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was in her purse. In the commission of this offence two persons had joined the autorikshaw driver. On the basis of the report lodged by her, offence came to be registered as stated above. The applicant applied for anticipatory bail to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. By order dated 13.06.2011 he rejected the application. It was contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the material before the police is only in the nature of statement of co-accused which is inadmissible. Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that: “Such statement of co-accused before police is admissible for the purpose of investigation, although same is not useful to treat as evidence, therefore, at this stage of investigation, I can rely on the statement of co-accused which show involvement of this applicant in this crime. If the applicant is given anticipatory bail, then investigation will suffer, as police will not be able to recover the bag of victim. Therefore, custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary.” Similar contention has been reiterated before this Court. 3 This Court is of the view that learned Additional Sessions Judge has adopted right approach and rightly rejected the application. The police have a right to arrest a person against whom reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence. Therefore, source of information is insignificant. At this stage, it is also insignificant that such information would be admissible or inadmissible in evidence during trial. The fact remains that, any credible information received from whatever source, police are clothed with power to effect arrest of such person. Unless custodial interrogation of the accused in serious offences is allowed, there cannot be effective and proper investigation. In the result I find no merit in this application. Application is rejected. JUDGE svk 4 From the date of taking over charge i.e. from 17.03.2011 till 06.05.2011 His Lordship Hon'ble Shri Justice M. N. Gilani was sitting at High Court Bombay as a Visiting Judge. T. A. /D. A. Bill of His Lordship may kindly be prepared. (S.V.Khot) P.S. to Hon'ble Judge. 5 6 7