1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.884 OF 2010 Balkrishna Trimukh Dhokre. ..Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents ..... Mrs.S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant. Mr.P.P. More, APP for respondents. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 29th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mrs.S.S. Jadhav, learned Counsel for applicant and Mr.P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for respondents. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with C.R. No.10/2010, registered with Shirur Anantpal Police Station, Dist.Latur for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 2 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the complaint has been registered on the report lodged by one Dayanand Raghunath Thokare alleging that on 07.02.2010, the complainant's mother Drupadabai, father Raghunath, son Nilesh and brother's son Kiran were in their field as there was Jawar crop in the land and the complainant was in other field which is nearby to the place of incident. At this juncture, Kiran went to complainant and informed that accused Trimukh had come in the field with tempo. Accordingly, the complainant went to his field and saw accused Trimukh, Babalu and co-brother of accused and other two unknown persons. They were removing bore well and they started abusing complainant and his parents. Thereupon, the complainant and their parents stated that, the bore well is in their land and it should not be removed until the decision of the court. At that time accused Trimukh assaulted complainant's mother Drupadabai by means of an Axe on her legs and on her head. Accused Babalu assaulted complainant's father on the hands, on head by means of katti. The co-brother of accused Trimukh assaulted complainant by 3 means of stick on right and left hand and two unknown persons also assaulted complainant on his head and back by means of sticks. Then the accused went away in the said tempo. 4. Thereafter, the victim Dropadabai expired on 10th February, 2010 and accordingly, section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was incorporated in the said complaint. Supplementary statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded on 16.02.2010. 5. On the aforesaid background, learned Counsel for applicant canvased that the name of applicant has not been figured anywhere in the complaint but his name was roped in the supplementary statements of complainant and other witnesses to satisfy personal vendetta of the complainant. It is also urged by learned Counsel for applicant that applicant is government employee and his employment would be at stake, if the present application is not allowed, since possibility of false implication of applicant is apprehended to malign his image and reputation. 4 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that supplementary statements of complainant and eye witnesses recorded after death of Dropadabai categorically involve applicant in the alleged offence. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that applicant namely Balkrushna is also known as Balu and specific overt act has been attributed to him in the supplementary statements of the complainant and eye witnesses. It is also canvased by learned A.P.P. that office of applicant has issued letter dated 18.02.2010 referring to the name of applicant as Balu and supplementary statements of complainant and eye witnesses categorically connect the applicant with the said crime. The learned A.P.P. also urged that initially the bail was granted to other co-accused persons namely Trimukh and Babalu but after death of Dropadabai on 10th February, 2010 and after incorporation of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the said F.I.R., the notices were issued by the trial Court to said co-accused persons and their bail was cancelled on 18.02.2010, since they did not respond to the said notices. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that the custodial interrogation of 5 applicant is necessary to make further progress in the investigation. 7. On perusal of the papers of investigation and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on minute perusal of the contents of complaint dated 07.02.2010 lodged by the complainant Dayanand Raghunath Thokare, it is seen that the name of applicant namely Balkrushna alias Balu has not been referred in the said complaint and therefore, supplementary statement of the complainant and supplementary statements of the witnesses recorded after death of Dropadabai i.e. after 10.02.2010 apparently appear to be recorded with a view to implicate applicant in the alleged offence falsely. Even if the letter issued by the office of the applicant is considered referring Balu and even if, it is considered that Balkrushna and Balu are one and the same person, the complaint does not refer any name as Balkrushna or Balu, and therefore, there appears to be false accusation against the applicant by recording supplementary statements with a view to malign the reputation of applicant, and hence, I am of the view 6 that the discretion under section 438 is required to be exercised in favour of applicant herein. 8. In the result, the present application deserves to be allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with C.R. No. 10/2010, registered with Shirur Anantpal Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 324, 504, 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing the P.R. bond in the like amount on the following terms and conditions: (a) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station between 5 to 7 p.m. on every Saturday till completion of investigation and shall attend the Police Station as and when required and shall co- operate with the investigation. (b) The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and shall not influence the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. (c) The applicant shall not enter into village namely 7 Khadak Omerga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur till the completion of investigation. 9. These observations are prima facie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. This order shall be in force till filing of the charge sheet. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri884.10