1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3448 OF 2009 Dr.Padmasinha Bajirao Patil ...APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel, for Mr. V.D.Salunke, Adv., for applicant. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, A.P.P., for respondent State. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3496 OF 2009 Mohan Anand Shukla and another ...APPLICANTS VERSUS Senior Inspector of Police, MIDC Police Station, Latur. and another. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. D.D.Tiwari & Mr.Bhushan V.Mahadik, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, A.P.P., for respondent State. ... 2 CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE 14/10/2009 *** P.C.: 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Shirish Gupte in first application while Mr. Dinesh D.Tiwari, Counsel, in the second application. Learned A.P.P. opposed to entertain the applications. 2. The complainant, a social worker, took recourse by lodging report with the Parner Police Station against the applicants herein vide Crime No.00/2009 and Police transmitted the same to the MIDC Police Station and Crime No.156/2009 is registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, against applicants. The accused/applicants seek discretion in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by directly approaching this Court, by-passing Sessions Court. 3. The accused/applicants Mohan AnandShukla and Satish R.Mandade are indeed in custody in other offense being Crime No.220/2006, registered at Kalamboli Police Station. 4. The accused/applicant Dr.Padamasinha Bajirao Patil was in custody for four months 3 and, thereafter, has been released on 25th Sept., 2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Alibaug. The above referred FIR at Parneris filed immediately after release of the accused/applicant Dr.Patil, dt.25.9.2009. 5. The learned Senior Counsel and the Counsel for applicant in second application criticised the statement of principal accused Parasmal Jail recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dt. 29.5.2009 and the second confession recorded by the learned Magistrate dt.18.8.2009. They exhausted their energies in pointing the inconsistencies in both the statements. To quote the instances, in the first statement, there is no reference that Satish Mandade's driver accompanied Parasmal Jail to show the house and showroom Mr.Pawan Raje Nimbalkar, however, it is so stated in the second statement. Then, in the first statement, the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.twenty five lacs) is said to be given while, in the second statement, the details of amount if calculated, will not exceed Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs. twenty lacs). In the first statement, there is reference to meeting Padamsinha Patil is in 2006 while in second statement, explanation is given as to why there was belated meeting as wife of Pande was taken ill. In the first statement amount was allegedly fixed by Satish Mandade and between Parasmal Jain, while, in the second 4 statement, ransom was fixed by Mohan Shukla. 6. It is canvassed that with sheer oblique motive to get the accused involved and arrested, the subsequent FIR is lodged by the complainant, a social worker. There is no need of custodial interrogation as no statement of any outsider is required to be recorded by the Police. The entire affair is stage managed. 7. At this stage of matter, detailed analysis of statement is not expected. The inconsistencies referred, indeed, will not change the course of allegations, against applicants. 8. It was at the instance of Dr.Patil, Satish Mandade tried to coordinate with Parasmal, as a contract killer, to eliminate complainant Anna Hajare. The different shades in such exercise needs to be un-wind. Section 43 of IPC ordains what is illegal. The word illegal is applicable to everything which is an offense or which is prohibited by law. The word injury denotes to any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation. 9. In the statement of complainant Kisan Baburao Hazare before the C.B.I. authorities he has quoted several instances as to how he was encountered and contacted by the 5 accused/applicant Dr.Patil, the nature of the threats exerted. Dr.Patil was obviously in an avenging mood to get rid of complainant. He has stated that when complainant was before Sawant Commission, Dr.Patil threatened him in presence of Advocate Arjun Patil, "Apko Jinda rehna hai ya jana hai and also told him to stop going against him otherwise he would finish him (complainant). The applicant Dr.Patil was always associated with 7/8 larrikin (Goondas). The matter was reported to the Chairman Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.B.Sawant. The second incident quoted by him is in the name of complainant's Secretary Dagadu Mapare who was offered a blank signed cheque by Dr.Patil and it was also canvassed that if blank cheque is not acceptable, they are ready to pay cash. Cash was flashed by Dr.Patil. Thus, statement of Arjun Patil, Dagdu Mapare is yet to be recorded, which will throw light on ill-intention of Dr.Patil. 10. The matter was even reported to the mentor of the applicants in Feb/March, 2009, as to how, at the instance of the mentor Dr.Patil was trying to eliminate complainant. 11. It is a matter of fact that the complainant has taken up gaunlet to expose illegalities and irregularities committed in public life by Dr.Patil and his associates ruining the sugar factory and siphoning off huge amounts of funds 6 meant for the Armed Forces under the banner of Kargil Relief/Assistance. 12. Though it is contended that it was a political rivallery and complainant is acting as a stooge for the same, at this stage of the matter, I do not find any primary substance in such allegations since the complainant was tried to be eliminated, threatened, he was justified in making the report against the applicants herein. 13. It is to be noted that Dr.Patil is a political figure, having served as a Minister in the State for long duration and he is a sitting Member of Parliament elected in May, 2009. This follows that, he can exploit a clout and make cluster with the investigator. That apart, he is bound to exert influence if he is allowed to remain a free bird, and it will be clipping off investigation from proper direction. 14. The contention that no offense under Section 302 of IPC or 511 of IPC is carved out may be correct but that does not mean that there is no prima facie evidence against the applicant Dr.Patil or Satish Mandade. The quoting of Sections of IPC by itself will not magnify the events, as the substance is important. The meetings which Satish Mandade had with Parasmal Jain primarily are with the connivance, 7 assistance and concert of Dr.Patil. It is not that in the meeting with Parasmal, Dr.Patil only stared at Parasmal Jain in the first meeting but Satish Mandade had detailed deliberation with Dr.Patil in his cabin and then only Dr.Patil made inquiries as to name of Parasmal Jain and then he stared at him. There is seldom direct evidence in conspiracy, it is an inference from circumstances. All these aspects as and by way of different straws of pieces need to be clubbed to have a formidable broom to sweep away the illegalities perpetrated by the applicants. Taking these aspects into consideration, I find that pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant in Criminal Application No.3448/2009 and the applicant No.2 in Criminal Application No. 3496/2009, is not just nor proper. Such release of the accused/applicant in terms of discretion will send bad message to the society and the entire investigation will be scuttled. The conspiracy is to be un-earthed by contacting several persons. The applicant/accused Dr.Patil and Satish Mandade apparently stooped low, distorting faith of the citizens. 15. So far as accused/applicant Mohan Shukla (In Criminal Application No.3496/2009) is concerned, there is remotely any indication that he has indulged in any concert to eliminate complainant Mr. Anna Hajare or had made any 8 arrangement for henchmen to work out the execution. His principal work was to carry out directions of Satish Mandade concerning executing Pawan Raje Nimbalkar and it did not whisper anywhere that Parasmal Jain was asked by Mohan Shukla to do away complainant Anna Hajare. I do not see custodial interrogation of Mohan Shukla is warranted. Hence order: ORDER (a) Application No.3448/2009 by Dr.Padamasinha Bajirao Patil in Crime No. 156/2009, registered at Latur Police Station is rejected. (b) Application No.3496/2009, to the extent of applicant no.1 Mohan Anand Shukla is allowed. The applicant Mohan Anand Shukla be released on his furnishing P.R. bond and surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand). (c) The accused Mohan since he is in custody in other offense, after his release from the said offense/crime shall attend the investigator at MIDC Police Station, Latur, in Crime No.156/2009, whenever so notified by the investigator. (d) The accused/applicant Mohan Shukla will surrender his passport to the investigator within 9 a fortnight. (e) The application of applicant no.2 Satish R.Mandade is rejected. Interim protection granted earlier is vacated. Heard Senior Counsel Mr. Gupte. Since the order is to be tested before the Apex Court,and owing to forthcoming holidays, the earlier interim protection to the respective applicant is extended till 27th Oct.,2009. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/3496-09crapl