{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3720 OF 2009 1. Bhanudas s/o Eknath Kotkar Age-53 years, Occ-Agriculture 2. Sandeep s/o Bhanudas Kotkar Age-28 years, Occ-Agri & Hotel Business 3. Sachin s/o Bhanudas Kotkar Age-26 years, Occ-Agri & Hotel Business 4. Amol s/o Bhanudas Kotkar Age-24 years, Occ-Agri & Hotel Business All R/o Eknathnagar, Kedgaon Dist-Ahmednagar 5. Ajay s/o Santosh Gaikwad Age-30 years, Occ-Service R/o Shastrinagar, Kedgaon Dist-Ahmednagar APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicants Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for the respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 30th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed {2} to release them on anticipatory bail in connection with the CR No. 302/2009 registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar for an offence punishable u/s 302, 201, 120 (B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that interim protection is granted to the applicants by this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants, followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, carried till today. 4. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to give chequered history of the case- It appears that on 19.05.2008 at about 11.00 hours, a person by name Ashok Bhimraj Lande, aged about 25 years, R/o Lande Wasti, Shevgaon, sustained injuries due to dash given by a vehicle, in Kinetic Chowk. He as admitted in Anandrishi hospital by applicant No.1 at about 11.55. As report was sent to the Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, ADR No.45/2008 was registered u/s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It further appears that in the said ADR, compliant was given by the brother of the injured, by name, Umesh Lande and on the basis of the said compliant, an offence came to be registered at CR No.150/2008 for an offence punishable u/s 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code r/w {3} section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It further appears that after the Postmortem was conducted, viscera was sent for chemical analysis on 22nd May 2008. Report of CA was received on 27th July 2008. The probable cause of death, as mentioned in the PM report, is due to hemorrhage shock due to multiple injuries. The PM report indicates that surface / external injuries are found on the body, which can be possible in the motor accident and the age of injuries was 24 hours. During the investigation, statements of the relatives of the deceased as well as witnesses, who were present at the spot were recorded. The said statements reveal that the deceased was not on rival terms, either on political or otherwise, with anybody. Considering these aspects, “A” summary in respect of CR No.150/2008 was filed before the JMFC-4, Ahmednagar on 14 th September 2008. This “A” summary was accepted by the learned JMFC, vide order dated 2 nd February 2009. As per the provisions under the Police Manual, “A” Summary means offence is detected to be true, but culprit not traceable. It is to be noted that report of “A” summary was filed by the police in respect of an offence at CR No.150/2008 u/s 279 and 304-A of the IPC. It further appears that one report was also submitted to the JMFC, Ahmednagar that during the investigation, statement of the father of the deceased was recorded wherein he had stated that some people, to take advantage to settle their political scores, obtained his signature on a compliant, however, contents of the said compliant were not disclosed to him. It is also stated in the said report that the father of the deceased had requested the police that {4} already he had suffered a lot of mental shock and trauma and now he was not in a position to suffer further tension due to the alleged incident and since the police have closed the case, then without his permission, the same may not be opened. 5. It appears that in respect of the said offence, wife of one Shankar Raut has filed criminal writ petition No.218/2009 in this Court praying to direct the police to register offence against the present applicants and to carry out investigation in the matter. It appears that the said writ petition is filed in the year 2009. It is informed that the said writ petition was withdrawn on 22.06.2009 when it was brought to the notice of the petitioner therein that the petitioner can file a compliant before the Magistrate in respect of alleged incident. Three months thereafter i.e. on 16 th September 2009, it appears that the compliant came to be filed against the present applicants in the Court of JMFC, Ahmednagar numbered as OMA 625/2009 in which the learned Magistrate directed investigation u/s 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that in view of this order, the applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with this crime. 6. It is urged that the applicant No.2 is ex-mayor of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, applicant No.1 is the father of applicants No.2 to 4 and applicant No.5 is the driver. It is contended that though the alleged offence occurred on 19.05.2008, yet the compliant is lodged after about 1 year and 4 months. It is {5} contended that the compliant is deliberately lodged after a gap of 1 year and 4 months coinciding with the fact that at that time the elections of Maharashtra Assembly were to take place and applicant No.2 was aspiring candidate to contest the said election and just to settle political scores, a false complaint, in respect of an incident which had taken place 1 year and 4 months age, is lodged at the time of filing of nominations for the assembly elections. Therefore, it is urged that the applicants are falsely implicated in this case and hence they are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 7. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that though a private compliant is lodged after a considerable delay, yet the same is explained in the complaint that as the police had not taken cognizance inspite of the fact that complainant has repeatedly approached the police. It is also urged that while the Court has accepted the “A” summary and closed the proceedings on 2nd March 2009, no notice was given to the complainant and considering the gravity of the offence, this application deserves to be rejected. 8. Considering the rival submissions, it has to bear in mind that the private compliant is not lodged by any of the relatives of the deceased, however, it is lodged by one Shankar Raut, who claims to be a social worker. Secondly, if police had not taken cognizance of the complainant, then why he waited for a {6} considerable long period to file the private compliant. So far as cause of delay is concerned, which is explained in the compliant, the same cannot be treated as an excuse. In the premise, the fact remains that whether the disclosure in the compliant is genuine or not. It has to bear in mind that the compliant is lodged at the time when the schedule of assembly election was declared. Secondly, the scope of considering the anticipatory bail application is to consider whether there are chances of false implication of the accused and whether the liberty and dignity of the accused is to be protected in the event it prima facie transpired that they are falsely implicated. The history of the case clearly indicates that the compliant was lodged after a period of 1 year and 4 months and if the way and manner in which the complaint is drafted is taken into consideration then chances of false implication of the present applicants cannot be ruled out. In the premise, case is made out to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted to the applicants on 29th October 2009 is hereby confirmed. However, it is made clear that this protection is granted for a period of 6 weeks only, during which period the applicant may apply for regular bail. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3720-09