- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2592/2010 Kiran Kumar s/o Miraji Salve. ...Applicant.. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent... ..... Shri K.N. Lokhande, Advocate for applicant. Shri K.S. Patil, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATE: 28.07.2010 PER COURT: 1] By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his - 2 - release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 45/2010 registered in Patoda Police Station Dist.Beed for the alleged offence u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 2] Record shows that vide order dated 14.7.2010, interim protection was granted to the present application to release him in the event of his arrest in connection with the said Crime No.45/2010. 3] It appears that his bail application was scheduled on 22.7.2010, but on that date, learned APP expressed his inability to proceed with the matter because papers of investigation were not forwarded to him. In view of this, as the experience of this Court indicates that there is no cooperation on the part of police department in spite of issuing fax messages as well as e-mail in time, the concerned police stations are not punctual in forwarding papers of investigation, which caused inconvenience to this Court and the files are piling due to non- cooperation of the police department. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the Superintendent of Police, Beed, for non-cooperation of police officers working under his control as well as notice was also issued to the concerned investigating officer. 4] Today, both the police officers are present before the Court in view of the notice issued by this Court and they have filed their detailed affidavit in reply, in which they have tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to - 3 - this Court. 5] Today when the application came up for final hearing, I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Also perused the papers of investigation, which are made available to this Court. 6] It appears that the said crime was registered as the complainant Shilpa Kirankumar Salve lodged Miscellaneous Application bearing No.45/2010, which was a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patoda, against the present applicant and 7 others for the alleged offence u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. wherein an order came to be passed for investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Because of the order of investigation, it appears that the said crime was registered in Patoda Police Station. In para 5 of the said complaint, there are specific allegations that on 23.3.2010 – Sunday, which as per the Calender of the year 2010 is Tuesday, a meeting was arranged at the house of the parents of the complainant, wherein present applicant was also present and demanded rupees two lakhs to purchase a Maruti car. Along with the application, the applicant has produced a certificate issued by the Principal, Premraj Sarda College, Ahmednagar, showing that on 23.3.2010, the applicant was present in the college as Supervisor as he was deputed on the duty as a Supervisor because the University examinations were in progress. A letter was placed on record issued by the University of Pune about the examination programme of the P.S. College, Ahmednagar, which shows that on 23.3.2010, examination was scheduled in the - 4 - second session i.e. in between 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. The letter issued by the Principal of the college shows that at the material time, the applicant was present in the college and working as a Supervisor in the said examination, which clearly goes to show that at the relevant time, the applicant was not present during the meeting as alleged in para 5 of the said complaint. Considering these aspects, a case is made out about the false implication of the applicant in the said private complaint for which this Court can exercise the discretion under its extraordinary jurisdiction. In view of this, applicant deserves for the following order. 7] Application is allowed. Interim protection granted to the applicant on 14.7.2010 is confirmed and to be continued till filing of the charge-sheet, if any. Application stands disposed of accordingly. In the affidavits filed by the concerned investigating officer and the Superintendent of Police, Beed, they have tendered unconditional apology and have assured this Court that in future, such acts will not be repeated. Hence, their explanation and unconditional apology is accepted. Notice is discharged against both. (A.V. Potdar, J.) ndk/cr287108