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. 672 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 672 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 672 OF 2009 1. Mr.Tanaji Mhasu Chougule, 2. Mr.Sambhaji Mhasu Chougule, 3. Mr.Yuvraj Eknath Pawar, 4. Mr.Rahul Eknath Pawar ...Applicants (Orig.Accused Nos.5 to 8) vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Abhaykuamr Apte for the Applicants. Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MARCH 3, 2009 DATED : MARCH 3, 2009 DATED : MARCH 3, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The applicants in this application have been arraigned as accused on a complaint filed by one Sharad Pawar and offence is registered at the Shirur Police Station vide C.R.No.296/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 504, 506, 307 of the IPC and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2. It is the case of the applicants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is the case of the applicants that the daughter of applicant no.2 - 2 - Sambhaji Mhasu Chougule was raped by the brother of the complainant in this case and he was convicted by the trial court. He preferred an appeal against the said order in the High Court and was released on bail. After he was released on bail, he again started threatening and started pressuring them to withdraw the said complaint. It was the case of the present applicants that on 2nd November, 2008, the complainant Sharad Pawar and three others threatened the prosecutrix - daughter of Sambhaji Mhasu Chougule and threatened her and asked her to withdraw the complaint and also threatened that they will also commit the said offence which was committed by the brother, as a result, NC complaint was lodged against them and thereafter, the present complaint was lodged as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the prosecutrix. 3. It is submitted that the applicant no.1 Tanaji Mhasu Chougule had in fact attended the office at Pimpri. The attendance sheet has been annexed to this application which shows that the applicant had reported to the office at 7 O’Clock in the morning and was - 3 - working till 3 O’Clock in the afternoon. It is submitted that the incident, in question, allegedly took place at about 80 km. at 12.30 p.m. from the place of office and therefore, it was not possible that the said Tanaji Chougule could have remained present at the site where the alleged offence took place. It is submitted that the names of the present applicants and the family members have been deliberately mentioned in the said complaint. It is further submitted that the Injury Certificate does not disclose an offence punishable under Section 307. 4. The learned APP has invited my attention to the statements of witnesses which are recorded by the police as also Injury Certificate. It is submitted that the question of alibi can be considered only at the final hearing of the trial and not at this stage. It is submitted that in any event, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. In my view, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, the possibility of the - 4 - false case being lodged against the present applicants cannot be ruled out. In any event, under the circumstances, since the statements of witnesses already have been recorded, custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be necessary. Prima facie, it does appear that applicant no.1 Tanaji Chougule was present in his office when the said incident took place. The complainant’s brother also bas been convicted for the offence of rape under Section 376. His appeal is pending in this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the present complainant and three other members of his family had caught hold of the prosecutrix on 2nd November, 2008 and had threatened her to withdraw the said complaint or to file compromised consent terms. She was also threatened by her. She, thereafter, immediately filed the NC complaint in the police station and thereafter, the present complaint has been filed. These facts indicate that prima facie the complainant had good reason to implicate the present applicants on account of prior enmity between them. The Injury Certificate indicates that the complainant had received the following injuries :- - 5 - Left elbow stab wound, CLW over occipital, Bluent trauma over neck. To the left hand :- CLW left base of thumb, CLW - 7.5 cm x 2 x 3 cm. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid injuries, it cannot be said prima facie that the offence under Section 307 has been made out against the present applicants. In any event, the said certificate has been issued by a Government Hospital. The record indicates that the letter has been written by the father of the complainant to the Police Inspector dated 8th December, 2008 wherein it is mentioned that though his son was attacked on 2nd November, 2008, no action had been taken against the applicants and therefore, on 3rd December, 2008 also, his son was again attacked by the applicants and NC was lodged on 3rd December, 2008. This report itself indicates that the complainant was not admitted in the hospital on 2nd November, 2w008 and NC was lodged on 3rd December, 2008. This creates doubt about the Injury Certificate which has been produced by the - 6 - complainant from a private hospital. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, serious doubt is created about the veracity of the complaint in this case and under these circumstances, therefore, in my view, this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. In any event, the custodial interrogation of the applicants will not be necessary since the applicants have reported to the police from time to time. 7. The application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, allowed. In the event, the applicants being arrested in connection with an offence which is registered by the Shirur Police Station vide C.R.No.296/2008 for the aforesaid offence, the applicants shall be released on bail in the sun of Rs.5000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicants shall report to the concerned police station twice in a month till the filing of the charge-sheet. The applicants shall co-operate with the police. The applicants, however, shall not threaten the complainant or his family members. If any further complaint is received, liberty is granted to the - 7 - Investigating Officer to apply for cancellation of bail. 8. The application is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)