1 185.11-aba bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.185 OF 2011 Mr.Rajendra Ashok Jasud ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Subhash Hulgolkar for Applicant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : MARCH 9, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard rival submission on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in the matter of C.R.No.57 of 2011 registered with Shirur Police Station, Dist. Pune. The offences alleged against the present applicant and other 11 co-accused persons are punishable under Section 307, 326, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and the offence of rioting with arms and deadly weapons like revolvers, swords, hockey sticks. 2. Incident in the present matter occurred at broad day-light at 10.30 a.m. or so at the Rajesh Petrol Pump, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Pune when the complainant and his other friends/associates in two vehicles arrive at the said Petrol Pump for filling diesel in their vehicles. Apparently, two other vehicles one being Safari admittedly owned by the present applicant No.1 arrive at the scene and intercepted the vehicle of the complainant and there was a sort of commotion. In fact, a riot like situation was created by almost more than 10 persons by use of fire arms, country made revolvers, sword, hockey sticks etc. Apparently, as per the allegations in the FIR lodged by one of the injured 2 185.11-aba victim, the said assault and rioting was entertained and managed on the instructions of the present applicant who was admittedly not present on the spot. However, his name was allegedly taken by co-accused one Pravin Jasud, real brother of the present applicant. 3. During the arguments, learned Senior Counsel Shri Mundargi for the applicant, raised three submissions in order to point out that it is not a case in which the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is warranted. Firstly; it is submitted that though as mentioned in the remand report of the Police dated 5th March, 2011, the incident at the petrol pump was captured in the CCTV, if such CCTV footage is produced and depicted, the presence of one Pravin Jasud, brother of the present applicant cannot be established. Consequently, if such presence is not established, then the story of said Pravin taking the name of the present applicant as master-mind of the crime is falsified. 4. The Second argument is that though the Safari which is allegedly used in the said riot and which is admittedly belonging to the present applicant it was given in the custody of Pravind Jasud, brother of present applicant. By pointing out this, it is submitted that the responsibility of any of the accused and the brother of the applicant cannot be foisted on him as to in which manner his brother would use the vehicle. 5. Thirdly, it is submitted that though the case of Investigating Officer is accepted as to some mobile call details available from different mobile service providers, some of the calls were of previous date of incident i.e. 15th February, 2011 and without there being any details of actual conversation, such communication would render no help to the Investigation Agency. 3 185.11-aba 6. It is an admitted position, that at the time of incident, the present applicant was not on the spot. However, his name is taken by the co-accused as mentioned in the FIR lodged for the incident of rioting and assault. So far as the first argument is concerned, as to what is captured in the CCTV installed at the petrol pump, at this stage, it is not necessary to go into the details as to what is captured in the CCTV, for the simple reason that, one cannot accept the proposition that if the incident is not captured in the CCTV, such incident has not occurred. In other words, what would be captured in the CCTV is depending upon the range of the camera and the direction in which it is fixed. For these reasons, if at all it is accepted that, in the CCTV footage the presence of co-accused Pravin Jasud, brother of the present applicant cannot be found, still, it cannot be a circumstance favouring the applicant as argued. 7. So far as the second argument is concerned, admittedly, the Safari car belongs to the present applicant and still, if at all it is exclusively given in the custody and use of the co-accused, it is for the Investigating Machinery to find out in what manner, the said vehicle was used or in fact used in the said offence. In this view of the matter, for this second argument, even the interrogation with the applicant can be of much help to the Investigating Agency when the investigation is going on. So far as the third argument is concerned, learned APP for the State produced a detailed call log obtained from the Idea Cellular Ltd. concerning the incoming and outgoing calls made from one of the co-accused Ajay Jagdale. From the said list, there are three calls on 15th February, 2011 i.e. one day prior to the date of incident and there is a communication of said co-accused with the present applicant and it was from 4.00 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. or so on the said earlier date. There are almost six calls on 16th February, 2011 ranging from 9.30 a.m. to 10.53 a.m. almost covering the period of rioting and assault that took place at the petrol pump. Apart from this call log of the co-accused, the attention of this Court is drawn 4 185.11-aba towards the call log again obtained from Idea Cellular Ltd. concerning mobile number registered in the name of the present applicant. So far as the telephone number is concerned, the attention of this Court is drawn towards one telephone directory issued by the local authority i.e. Nagarparishad, Shirur showing the names of members of the Zilla Parishad with their mobile and telephone numbers in which the name of the present applicant is appearing with two mobile numbers. One of the numbers is given in the call log obtained by the Investigating Agency. As such, prima facie, there is a material that there was a sort of communication and constant touch of co-accused with the present applicant one day prior to the incident and also during the relevant time of the incident on 16th February, 2011. 8. So far as the antecedents of the present applicant are concerned, it is brought to the notice of the Court that much earlier in the year 2002 at Shirur, Dist. Pune at C.R.No.5 of 2002, there was an offence registered against the applicant punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 7 and 25 of the Arms Act. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that there are almost seven offences registered against the co-accused – Pravin Jasud, brother of the present applicant and most of them are of serious nature i.e. punishable under Section 302, 307, 436, 452, 306 etc. It is the allegation against the applicant that he is a master-mind of a gang indulging in criminal activities in the local area of MIDC and on this count also, further investigation is required to be done. 9. Considering the above factual position, in the opinion of this Court, this is not a case in which a discretionary relief can be granted in favour of the applicant. Hence, the application stands dismissed. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)