1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.477 OF 2011 IN C.R. NO.105 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.477 OF 2011 Mr. Shivmangal Singh Gaur .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel i/by M/s Rajesh Sharma & Associates for applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. B.D. Abhale, for Intervener Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 15th July, 2011 P.C. 1. The above application for anticipatory bail is on the apprehension that the applicant would be arrested in C.R. No.105 of 2011 2 registered with Silvassa Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120 read with 34 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3, 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act. 2. The second application is for permission to intervene in the anticipatory bail application. The applicant in the intervention application is not the first informant in C.R. No.105 of 2011. He is the victim of the incident of assault. The record shows that there is a feud going on between the applicant and the intervener which would be presently referred to. This feud is alleged to be the motive for the assault. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the allegations and counter allegation, in my opinion, the intervention application should be allowed. Hence, the same is hereby allowed. 3. Heard the counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for Union Territory of Dadara and Nagar Haveli and Silvassa and the counsel for the intervenor. 4. On 16th May 2011, one Raju Bhawarlal lodged a complaint with Police stating that on that day, at about 8.00 pm. when he was standing near Maganbhai Rathod Chawl talking to the intervenor and one Munna Painter, an unknown person fired at the 3 intervener with a pistol. The intervener sustained injury to his shoulder and was rushed to the Hospital. After stating the details of the incident of assault, Raju Bhawarlal, at the end of his statement, referred to the illicit relations that the intervener had with the wife of the applicant to express his suspicious that the attackers must have been sent by the applicant. This suspicion is the only material in the complaint against the applicant. 5. Based on this statement, two days thereafter, the Police visited the residence of the applicant at Silvassa, where they were told that he had gone to his native place in Madhya Pradesh. Therefore on 20th May 2011, the Police reached his house at Madhya Pradesh. There they learnt from the mother and brother of the applicant that the applicant was at the native place but had left the place on 18th May 2011. The Police however waited till 24th May 2011 before returning to Silvassa on 25th May 2011. The present application for anticipatory bail was filed on 26th May 2011. On 15th June 2011, the Police announced a Reward of Rs.10,000/- over the applicant contending that he had been absconding. Therefore, Mr. Nalawade, the learned counsel for the Union Territory of Dadara and Nagar Haveli and Silvassa strongly urges that the 4 applicant does not deserve pre-arrest bail. Further according to him, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to find out the identity of the unknown attackers. 6. The learned counsel for the intervener supports the submissions of Mr. Nalawade by making reference to the details of the dispute between the applicant and the intervener. In the year 2009, the applicant had lodged a complaint with Police alleging that his wife Poonam was kidnapped by the intervener. She was taken to different places like Mount Abu, Ajmer, Simla, Kulu Manali, Vaishnodevi, where the intervener forced himself upon her. The Police registered C.R. No.136 of 2009 initially for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 365 and 506(II) Indian Penal Code and later included the offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. In that complaint, the intervener was arrested and later released on bail. The sessions case relating to that is part heard. It is pending for the evidence of applicant and his wife Poonam. 7. It is strongly contended by the Mr. Nalawade as also the learned counsel for the intervenor that there is sufficient evidence available to indicate that the wife of the applicant had in fact 5 eloped with the intervener. She was neither kidnapped nor raped by the intervener. They contend that in order to save himself from embarrassment, the applicant filed false complaint against the intervener and for the same reason, he tried to take life of the intervener. 8. As regards the contention of absconding, Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had left Silvassa on 14th May 2011. He had first gone to his native place. After staying there two days, he went to Jhansi, where he has his business. While at Jhansi, he learnt about the incident of assault and the complaint against him. Immediately thereafter i.e. On 26th May 2011. he filed the present application for anticipatory bail. The explanation given by the applicant is plausible. Today there is no material on record to disbelieve it. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the applicant was absconding during this period. Surprisingly in this case, the Police have shown extra- ordinary quickness in announcing reward over the applicant. The announcement is made within less than a month after the incident that too after searching for the applicant at only two places, his residence at Silvassa and his residence at the native 6 place. 9. Perusal of the case papers produced by the Police show that there is no material whatsoever on record to connect the applicant to the incident of assault upon the intervener. There is only suspicion expressed by the complainant based upon existence of the feud between the two. This could be said to be a strong motive for the applicant to get at the intervener but howsoever strong the motive, it cannot be take place of incriminating material against the applicant. 10. Since, there is no material whatsoever on record to connect the applicant to the incident of assault, in my opinion, he can be granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant is confirmed. At the request of Mr. Nalawade, the applicant is directed to attend Silvassa Police Station for a further period of eight days, every day starting from 19th July 2011, between 11 am. to 2 p.m. and thereafter as and when called upon by the Investigating Agency. The Police are also at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail after giving 24 hours notice in writing to the applicant, in the event the police discover incriminating material against the 7 applicant. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)