1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 765 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 765 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 765 OF 2005 Uttam Bhimrao Mane & Anr. ..Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. ----- Shri V.V. Purwant for the Applicants. Shri V.B.Konde- Deshmukh, APP for Respondent -State. ----- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 22, 2005 DATED : FEBRUARY 22, 2005 DATED : FEBRUARY 22, 2005 PC :- PC :- PC :- 1. Perused the affidavit of Laxuman Mahadeo Borate, Assistant Police Inspector and Investigating Officer in the case, sworn on 22nd February, 2005. This affidavit is filed in terms of the observations made in the order dated 21st February, 2005. The affiant failed to attend this court on past 4 dates when the matter was listed and inspite of receiving intimations sent to him to that effect. Even accepting the plea taken in the affidavit as filed about his non - appearance on 10th, 15th and 17th February, 2005, as a sufficient cause, there is no reason, in my opinion, to accept the excuse given by the affiant in respect of his non -appearance in the court on 21st February, 2005, especially when there was clear direction by this court to him, to appear in 2 person alongwith the relevant record and offer explanation, as stated in the order dated 17th February, 2005. The fact that such direction has been informed and he had knowledge about the same, is not disputed by the affiant; but the excuse given is that he was busy because of Bandobast and for investigation of offence under section 307 of the I.P.C.. Nowhere in the affidavit, it is mentioned that the affiant had informed his superior about the direction given by this court, requiring him to personally remain present in the court on 21st February, 2005, as specifically stated in the order dated 17th February, 2005. Shri Borate, who is personally present in the court, states that he did not take the trouble to inform his superiors about the court’s order and his necessity to appear in the High Court on 21st February, 2005. It is not as if the affiant was the only person, who could have remained present for Bandobast but there are other police officers who could have taken care of the Bandobast on the given date. The approach and the attitude of the investigating officer Shri Laxmun Mahadeo Borate with regard to the requirement of his appearance before the court, inspite of clear directions by the court is, to say the least, very casual and cannot be countenanced. However, he has 3 tendered unconditional apology on affidavit as well as remained present in the court; While accepting the same, it is observed that if the superior authority comes accross similar dis-obedience or dereliction of duty on his part in future, may proceed to take appropriate action against this officer, if so advised. Copy of the above order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Sholapur for information and necessary action. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. This application is filed by the accused Nos.4 and 6 respectively for bail. 4. On perusing the statements of the complainant Sheru Taher Balolkhan as well as Taher Usman Balolkhan and Kayyam Usman Balolkhan, it appears that only the presence of the applicants is the basis to proceed against the applicants. No specific role has been ascribed to the applicants. Besides no recovery has been made from the applicants or at their instance. Investigation is also complete. Taking over all view of the matter, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail on following conditions :- 4 (a) The Applicants are granted bail in connection with C.R.No. 69/2004, registered with Valsang Police Station, Solapur on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) each with two local sureties in the like amount. (b) The applicants shall not enter the jurisdiction of Valsang Police Station during the pendency of the trial. (c) The applicants shall inform their place of residence to the concerned investigating officer and the trial court within 10 days from the date of their release. (d) The Applicants shall extend full co-operation to the trial court for early disposal of the trial. If the trial court is of the opinion that the applicants are responsible for delay in trial that fact be recorded in the Rozanama, which can be a ground for cancellation of bail. (e) The applicants shall not influence the prosecution witness or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. 5 5. Ordered accordingly. .....