1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 119 of 2010 Shri Rana @ Surojit Roy & Anr. ... Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Shirish Gupte Sr.Advocate with Mr.Subodh Desai for the applicant. Mr.Ganesh Gole for the intervenor. Mrs.A.A. Mane APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 3rd February 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with I-149 of 2009 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Dist.Thane for an offence punishable u/s.302, 307, 427, 141 to 149 and 120B and other sections of the IPC. 2 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6th December 2009 Samir Gosavi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) along with his friend Mahesh Bhoir (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) went to a site near Lok Nagar Essar Petrol pump where the deceased wanted to construct a compound wall between the petrol pump and adjoining site. The petrol pump was being conducted by the present applicants and there was a dispute regarding the exact location where the compound wall could be constructed. At that time, one Mr.Madhu Bhoir came to the site and called the complainant and the deceased to the office of the applicants located on the petrol pump. The deceased and the complainant went to the office where Madhu Bhoir, Mangesh Bhoir and Ganesh Bhoir were sitting. After questioning the deceased as to why he was attempting to construct the compound wall, they abused him and one Bhalchandra Bhoir took out a revolver and fired at the deceased. Thereafter, they also damaged the Innova car of the deceased. The deceased was then removed to the hospital where he was declared dead. 4. Mr.Gupte, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants 3 submitted that the applicants were not present when the deceased was attacked. The complainant has also not mentioned about the presence of the applicants and that shows that the applicants were not connected with the crime. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor and learned APP pointed out that there was a dispute between the applicants and the deceased regarding the construction of the compound wall at the site and that was the motive. They further pointed out that the complainant has stated that Madhu Bhoir stated that they were called by the applicants. The place where the crime was committed was the office of the complainant and this prima facie connects the applicants to the crime. It is therefore possible that the crime might have been committed at the instance of the applicants who might not be present at the site actually when the crime took place. In any event, this requires further investigation and the presence of the applicants is needed for the purpose of custodial interrogation. 6. The fact that the crime was committed at the office of the applicants and also the fact that the deceased was invited in the office by the applicants through Madhu Bhoir shows some connection of the 4 applicants to the crime. There was also a motive for committing the crime. In the circumstances, in my view, custodial interrogation appears necessary. Hence, applicants cannot be granted pre-arrest bail. Needless to show that after custodial interrogation and investigation, if no material is found against them, they would be free to apply for regular bail before the appropriate court. With these observations, application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)