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. 725 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 725 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 725 OF 2009 Mr.Manu Laxman Lokhande ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.S.R. Chitnis, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Pankaj Kavale for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MARCH 12, 2009 DATED : MARCH 12, 2009 DATED : MARCH 12, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant who apprehends arrest in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 307, 452, 34 of the IPC registered with the Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan. 3. Prosecution case is that one Dr.Mrs.Mrunalini Manu Lokhande was attacked in her house by two persons and they assaulted her with a hammer on her head. Her husband who used to normally sleep next to her had left - 2 - the bedroom sometime in the night. On hearing the cries of the complainant, the police arrived there and apprehended the two persons who had assaulted her. During interrogation, these two persons disclosed the police that the husband of the complainant had given them Rs.3 lakhs to commit the murder of the complainant. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in the first complaint read with FIR, no reference has been made against the present applicant. It is further submitted that her supplementary statement was recorded on 10th February, 2009. It is submitted that the statement of the co-accused is not admissible in evidence and that being a case, there is no material on record against the present applicant and therefore, he is entitled to get anticipatory bail. 5. The learned APP invited my attention to the supplementary statement of the wife which is recorded thereafter on 10th February, 2009. He submitted that that due to the injuries which were received by her in the said assault, she was admitted in the hospital and - 3 - her statement could not immediately be recorded. In the second statement, she has given various circumstances which create a doubt about the involvement of the present applicant. 6. Since an application has been filed for anticipatory bail, it has to be seen whether prima facie case is made out by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. The material which is shown to me by the learned APP and more particularly, the supplementary statement of the complainant, clearly reveals that further investigation is necessary in this case. It is no doubt true that statement of co-accused is not admissible in evidence, however, since the investigation is going on, the police have a right of investigation on the basis of the information which is gathered. Under these circumstances, therefore, in my view, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. The application is rejected. 8. The appropriate court shall not be influenced by - 4 - the observations made by this court in this order while rejecting the application of anticipatory bail filed by the applicant since these observations are of prima facie nature and have been made while considering the application for anticipatory bail. If an application for regular bail is filed by the applicant, the learned Magistrate shall decide the application without being influenced by these observations. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)