1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1821 OF 2010 (Rafique Shkur Khwajawale .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate with Shri A.B. Mirza, Advocate for the applicant. Smt. A.R. Taywade, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 07TH DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 177/2010 registered with the Police Station, Ramdaspeth, Akola. The First Information Report lodged with Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola on 03.10.2010. The sum and substance of the report is that the complainant Parveen and her family members had a dispute over the landed property with Imran, Rafique, Yunus, Shakur. The Court proceedings were also pending between the parties. There were exchange of threats. On 03.10.2010, applicant along with Imran, Yunus and Shakur had been to the house of Shakil. Shakur asked for water and when the complainant Parveen was offering water to Shakur, he caught hold hair of the complainant. The husband of complainant who was watching TV, immediately stood up. The applicant caught hold the husband of the complainant Parveen. Yunus Shakur caught hold legs of the victim and Imran Salim who along with knife assaulted the victim. On raising hue and cry, the other members of the family rushed to the spot. The assailants along with the applicant fled away from the spot. The victim was immediately taken up to the Civil Hospital for the treatment and unfortunately he succumbed to the assault. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that as 2 there is a long standing enmity between the parties, the applicant who was pleading the case in the Court, is falsely involved in the said offence. He further submits that even taking the case as it is, the role attributed to the applicant is that only he caught hold the victim; whereas there are serious allegations against other assailants and the main assailant is Imran Salim who was armed with knife and assaulted the victim. He further submits that the applicant being a legal practitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and as such the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application by filing reply. She made available the papers of investigation to this Court. She submits that apart from the complainant, the statement of other witnesses recorded by the investigating agency show that the applicant was present on the spot and he caught hold the victim to facilitate the main assailant to assault the victim with knife. She further submits that there is no dispute, there is long standing enmity between the parties and in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, it will hamper the investigation. I have gone through the statements recorded by the investigating agency. The witnesses gave the similar story as reflected in the report given by complainant Parveen. It seems that the investigating agency has completed the major investigation. The main assailant Imran Salim is arrested and is behind the bars. The investigation papers show that the recovery is effected against the other accused persons. It is also revealed from the investigation papers that ad-interim protection was granted to the applicant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola as well as by this Court and the applicant has approached to the investigating agency offering his cooperation in the investigation. Learned APP fairly submits that there is no grievance raised by the investigating agency that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation. The communication i.e. application submitted by the applicant to the Police Station 3 Officer, Akola and the reply given by the Police Station Officer to the applicant are placed on record by the applicant. Learned APP submits that the custody of the applicant is required as the blood stained clothes of the applicant are to be recovered. Considering the material placed before me, I am of the opinion that the prima facie case is made out by the applicant. the apprehension expressed by the investigating agency that the custody of the applicant is required for certain purposes in furtherance of the investigation can be taken care of by putting applicant on conditions. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in such event, the course adopted by the Apex Court in the judgment of Abdul Hamit Ansari and others .v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 2000(4) Crimes 60 (SC) which is followed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 3702 of 2009, can be exercised in the case of applicant also. I find considerable merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant. The purpose of the investigating agency can be served by asking the applicant to present himself before the investigating agency for specified period as it is done in the case of Sindhu Baliram .v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No. 3702 of 2009) by this Court. In the result, the application is allowed on the condition that the applicant shall surrender before the Investigating Officer or the remand Court concerned on 10th, 11th and 12th December, 2010. Investigating Officer shall obtain appropriate order or remand from the Court concerned. He shall complete interrogation in the case in relation to applicant within three days maximum from the date and time of arrest. On expiry of period of three days, applicant shall be released on bail on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with one or more sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall cooperate with investigation and shall attend Investigating Officer as and wen called during day time. He shall 4 not try to tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner. Applicant shall leave his fixed address with telephone/cell phone number, if any, with the Investigating Officer and shall communicate change therein, if any, in future. If the applicant is carrying passport, the same be deposited with the Investigating Officer. Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE *rrg.