1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3195 OF 2010 Machhindra s/o Pandurang Dhumal Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents Mr. S.B.Jadhav, advocate holding for Mr.V.R.Dhorde, advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3278 OF 2010 Pradip s/o Dattatraya Hase Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents Mr. R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Jadhav, advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3279 OF 2010 1 Prabhakar s/o Sitaram Phapale 2 Balasaheb s/o Shivram Kumkar 2 3 Bhausaheb s/o Ravba Gorde 4 Suresh s/o Tanhaji Bhese 5 Ramhari Gopinath Tikande 6 Daulat s/o Pandurang Dhumal Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents Mr. R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Jadhav, advocate for the applicants. Mr. D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3280 OF 2010 1 Sudam s/o Tabaji Hande 2 Subhash s/o Bhika Holagir Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents Mr. R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Jadhav, advocate for the applicants. Mr. D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3281 OF 2010 3 1 Dr.Manoj s/o Sakhahari More 2 Anita w/o Manoj Sakhahari More Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents Mr. R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Jadhav, advocate for the applicants. Mr. D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3282 OF 2010 Nitin s/o Suresh Naikwadi Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents Mr. R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Jadhav, advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3332 OF 2010 Machindra s/o Trambik Mandlik Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents 4 Mr. R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Jadhav, advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondents. CORAM: A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 18 th August, 2010. P.C.: 1 By these applications, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.81/10, registered in Akole Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the alleged offences under Sections 143 to 149, 307, 353, 435, 436, 427 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7 of Criminal Amendment Act and certain Sections of the Bombay Police Act. 2 The record shows that initially Criminal Application No.3195/2010 was moved before this Court on 11th August, 2010. On that day, interim protection was granted to that applicant. 3 All these applications arise / offshoot of one CR i.e. CR No.81/10 and, therefore, by consent, all these applications are to be disposed of by one common order. 4 Heard learned Counsel for applicants and learned A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Also perused the papers of 5 investigation till carried out. 5 It appears that the said crime came to be registered on the complaint of one Balasaheb Nivrutti Pardhi, Police Naik, B.No. 1774, attached to Akole Police Station, who had filed the complaint on behalf of the State Government. It is alleged in the said complaint that on 23rd July, 2010, when he was attached to Akole Police Station, P.I. R.K.Tayde, attached to the same Police Station has registered the offence vide CR No.9/10 under Section 12A of the Gambling Prohibition Act against some persons. A mob comprising of 58 known persons, whose names are disclosed in the F.I.R. And 700 to 800 unknown persons was gathered outside Akole Police Station armed with deadly weapons around 5.45 p.m. They asked P.I. Tayde to release the accused arrested under the Gambling Prohibition Act and on that count, due to altercation of words between P.I. Tayde and the mob, the persons present in the mob started stone pelting towards the police station. Due to the said stone pelting, P.I. Tambe, attached to Sangamner Police Station, P.S.I. Pawar, attached to Akole Police Station, A.P.I. Bhagat, attached to Akole Police Station and Police Constable Vayal attached to City Police Station sustained injuries. They were referred for medical examination along with police yadi. At that time, P.I. Tayde, some police constables and others came outside the Police Station and informed the mob that they are members of unlawful assembly and requested them to stop the illegal activity of stone pelting on the police station. The mob was uncontrollable. 6 It is further alleged that at about 7.45 p.m., three police vehicles were set on fire by the said mob as well as due to stone pelting, much damage has been caused to the Government property like the building and furniture situated therein. On obtaining written permission from the Tahsildar, as the Tahsil office is also situate in the same premises, the police party started using tear gas and P.I. Tayde and two others fired from the Service Revolvers to cool down the mob. Thereafter the mob sprayed. Thereafter the said offence came to be registered against 58 known persons and 700 to 800 unknown persons for the offences alleged under the Sections stated in earlier part of this paragraph. 6 It is contended across the bar on behalf of the applicants that there is hue and cry in the citizens of Akole about the police atrocities of P.I. Tayde. For this purpose, learned Counsel for the applicants, has drawn my attention towards the news articles dated 06.02.2010 and 07.02.2010, which disclose that applicant in Criminal Application No.3195/2010, who is the local leader of Shiv Sena Party at Akole, has protested against the illegal activities of this P.I. and due to this protest, initially the applicant was arrested and abused. Further, my attention is also drawn towards the news item dated 20.12.2009 about the attack, assault and humiliating treatment to the Gram Sevak Union of that area. There are also allegations against P.I. Tayde about the protection given by him to the illegal activities carried out in that area, for which, there was hue and cry and political parties are 7 protesting against the activities of said P.I. It is also informed that applicants in Criminal Application No.3281/2010 are the sister and brother-in-law of applicant in Criminal Application No. 3195/2010 and one of the applicant in Criminal Application No. 3279/2010 is the younger brother of this applicant, while applicant in Criminal Application No.3278/2010 is the cousin brother of this applicant. 7 It is also contended across the Bar that when the incident was going on for a considerable period, it is beyond human nature that one may recollect the names of 58 persons who were members of the mob assembled outside the Police Station. At the same time, it is also urged across the Bar that even though names of 58 persons are disclosed in the F.I.R., no overt act is complained against these persons other than the applicant in Criminal Application No.3195/2010, as he was instigating the mob for stone pelting. According to learned Counsel for the applicants, this complaint is lodged at the instance of P.I. Tayde, which is otherwise motivated to calm down the public protest against his activities and hence prayed to grant protection of pre-arrest bail in favour of these applicants. 8 The applications are vehemently opposed by learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, on the ground that during the incident, lot of damage was caused to the police vehicles, some of the private vehicles as well as public and private property at the 8 hands of the mob assembled outside the Police Station. It is also urged that activities of this mob are illegal activities aimed to rescue the accused who are arrested in connection with the offence under Gambling Prohibition Act. In substance, according to the learned A.P.P., there are no merits in the applications and applications are required to be rejected. 9 Considering the submissions across the Bar and on perusal of papers of investigation, two facts are clear that there is public hue and cry about the otherwise activities of police officer P.I. Tayde, for which, he was protested by the public at large. It is true that no criminal law Court rely upon the news report about any of the activities took place in any of the area, at the same time, the basis of this public hue and cry is registration of the offence under the Gambling Act vide CR No.9/10. The perusal of the complaint as well as the papers of investigation no where discloses on which date this CR is registered and against which accused and whether those accused are still in custody or they were released prior to the date of incident. It is to be noted that the alleged incident took place in the third week of July 2010, while the said CR i.e. 9/10, from the number itself, appears to be registered in the earlier part of the year 2010. If it is registered in the earlier part of the year 2010, then what is the connection between that CR and the public cry about the registration of that CR, no where clear from the papers of investigation made available to this Court. Apart from it, on perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the 9 statements of witnesses, who are supporting the contents of the F.I.R., as they are police officials attached to the said Police Station, but no where speaks about the overt acts, if any, at the hands of these applicants. In the absence of any overt act complained at the hands of these applicants, either by the complainant or by the witnesses, no specific liability can be saddled on these applicants at least at this stage. From perusal of the statement of photographer, it reveals that on the next day, the photographer was called to shoot the damaged property and the damaged vehicles, which cannot be termed as a live video shooting while the incident was in progress. 10 Considering these aspects, as the offence is registered against the persons who are protesting against the police atrocities at the hands of police officer, a case is made out to enlarge the applicants on pre-arrest bail, but on certain conditions. In view of this, all the applications deserve the following order: ORDER (a) All the Applications are hereby allowed. (b) The protection granted to the applicant in Criminal Application No.3195/2010 is hereby extended till filing of the charge sheet. (c) Applicants in remaining applications i.e. 3278/2010, 3279/2010, 3280/2010, 3281/2010, 3282/2010 and 3332/2010 be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.81/10, registered in Akole Police Station, District Ahmednagar, 10 on their furnishing local solvent surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) each and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount. (d) After their release, they have to cooperate with the investigation agency and to give attendance in the said Police Station, if required on written intimation by the Investigation Officer investigating this crime. (e) {The observations in this order are prima facie based on the papers of investigation placed at the time of submissions in these applications and lower Court not to influence with these observations either during the trial or otherwise.} (f) All these Criminal Applications stand disposed of. (A.V.POTDAR) JUDGE ******* adb/criapln319510