1 APPLN 5533 OF 2010 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5533 OF 2010. Arun Prabhakar Borude .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. M.S. Mohite, with Mr. Vaibhav G. Bagade, for the Applicant. Mr. niteen Pradhan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. P.A. Pol and Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 20th December, 2010 P.C. 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by dismissed Police Inspector who apprehends his arrest in the case of rape of a minor girl in a flat which was in possession of the Court Receiver of the High Court. According to investigating agency, one Shantabai was acquainted with the applicant and she used to provide services of that minor girl to the applicant in the flat which was in possession of Court Receiver. The girl ultimately conceived on 17th October, 2010 and gave birth to a child. On 21st October, 2010, she was shifted to Hospital where she was shown to be 19 years old at the time of admission. Subsequently the Medical Officer found that she was a minor. Social worker also noticed this and then matter 2 APPLN 5533 OF 2010 reached to the police. A report was made by the victim on 1st November, 2010 in which she mentioned that she had been taken by Shantabai to customers who were young persons. The applicant is admittedly not an young person. However, even the learned counsel for the applicant rightly submitted that First Information Report is merely first information which sets the investigation machinery in motion and is not encyclopedia and therefore, if in course of investigation, complicity of the applicant is disclosed, the applicant would have to be subjected to investigation,. 2. The applicant seems to have been missing from his position since 8th or 9th November, 2010. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State at sufficient length. In fact the applicant does not dispute having been in possession of flat which was supposed to be in the hands of Court Receiver and also the fact that his belongings in the said flat were shifted by him to a garage of one Kamalbhai, at D.N. Nagar, Andheri. It is also not disputed that in the course of investigation the belongings in the said garage have been seized and those include personal papers of the applicant. Thus the fact that he has been using the flat which was supposed to have been in the possession of Court Receiver is not disputed. However, that is the matter in which the applicant’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is being considered. As far as 3 APPLN 5533 OF 2010 the crime concerning that flat, the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to have admitted the applicant to anticipatory bail and that order has been questioned by the State by separate petition. 4. The question is whether the applicant’s being in custody is necessary for the purpose of investigation into the allegation that the applicant has been committing rape upon a minor below 16 years of age. Shantabai who used to allegedly send the minor to the applicant, had been arrested and her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal procedure Code, has been recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. I have also gone through that statement as also other papers pertaining to investigation. 5. The applicant does not dispute that he knows Shantabai as also that there were 239 conversations between mobile number belonging to applicant’s friend one Subramanian Narayanan from which the applicant was using and Shatabai's mobile phone. But it is claimed by the applicant that applicant had been keeping contacts with Shantabai because she was police informer . Learned counsel for the applicant submits first, that there is nothing unusual about applicant’s keeping contact with Shantabai and that in itself cannot lead to an inference that Shantabai was providing any such immoral services through minor girl to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that even according to investigating agency, he resides with his family members including 4 APPLN 5533 OF 2010 his wife and daughter in just adjacent flat and therefore, it is not feasible that he was hiring the services of any girl in an adjacent flat. He points to the possibility that because of some displeasure amongst his colleagues he is being hounded out and therefore apprehends that he will not be dealt fairly considering the fashion in which investigation is proceeding. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, submits that since the girl was called at an odd hours like 5.00 a.m, etc the escapades of the applicant may not have been noticed by his family members. In any case that is the matter which would have to be probed further. Right now as the matter stands, the question is whether a Police Officer, who is alleged to be involved in a rape of minor should be running away from law rather than believing in his own peers ability to crack the case and unearth the truth. Therefore, the conduct of keeping himself away and letting the matter proceed to the stage of his dismissal itself is a very glaring suspicious circumstance against the applicant. In view of this, the applicant would not be entitled to anticipatory bail. His application is therefore, rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)