1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1306/2010 (Siddarath Sanjay Trivedi .vrs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for applicant, Mr. D.P. Thakre, APP for non-applicant/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J DATED : JANUARY 14, 2011 Heard. The applicant after rejection of his application for anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, has approached for such a prayer in connection with Crime No.217/2010 registered with Sadar Police Station, Nagpur for commission of offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The said crime is registered on the first information report of one Sachin Agrawal in which inter alia it is stated that during the party hosted by one Sweety Pillai in scuffle the applicant snatched a gold chain weighing of six tolas on the person of first informant and ran away. The learned APP vehemently objected the prayer by stating that the investigation is incomplete inasmuch as the stolen property being yet to be 2 recovered. It was urged that presence of the applicant is necessary for conducting the identification parade for the witnesses of the crime. The learned counsel for applicant urged that in spite of investigation being carried out for a period of six months, failure of the investigating agency to collect any tangible material about the stolen property is fully suggestive of false allegations being levelled for falsely implicating the applicant with some ulterior object. It is urged that during the party a free fight had occurred in between the persons gathered for the party and the hotel management was forced to call the police. It is urged that the first informant for saving himself from clutches of the law has filed a false complaint implicating the applicant. The learned counsel further urged that in spite of the applicant attending the investigating officer during the period from 2nd to 10th of August in which he was protected by ad-interim order by the Court of Session, he has not bothered to conduct any identification parade clearly reveals that such a ground is now canvassed only to deprive the applicant anticipatory bail on the pretext of investigation being incomplete. The learned counsel for applicant urged that considering all the aforesaid aspects and particularly the absence of the cogent material regarding any chain being snatched, the applicant who is student studying in 12th standard, deserves to be protected from unnecessary humiliation due to the false implication by granting anticipatory bail. It is urged that non-grant of 3 such bail is unlikely to cause any prejudice to the investigating agency/ prosecution. The perusal of the material in the case diary prima facie does not reveal any requisite investigation being effected within a period of seven months for ascertaining the details of the property alleged to have been snatched during the incident. On query made by the Court, the learned APP upon instructions from the I.O. submitted that said chain was gifted by wife of first informant during their marriage. However, the learned APP was not able to pinpoint any material in the diary in support of the said submission or any other material showing that the first informant was owning such a chain. Needless to add that story of first informant possessing a chain squarely rests upon the oral statements of the witnesses claiming to have chain weighing six tolas (?) being snatched during the incident. The same is the case regarding the non- holding of identification parade i.e. for fixing the identity of the culprit involved in the crime even though material collected during the investigation failing to disclose full name and/or other details of the culprit sufficient to infer his identity. Having regard to the same the possibility of the applicant being falsely implicated, as canvassed on his behalf, cannot be said to be altogether ruled out. Thus the applicant has made out a case for issuing interim direction, as prayed. Hence, Investigating Officer of Crime No. 217/2010 is directed that in event of an arrest of the applicant in connection with the said crime, he be 4 released on bail upon himself furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount and subject to the conditions that applicant : (i) shall attend said Police Station in connection with the investigation of the said crime on every day in first week and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer until filing of the charge sheet; (ii) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation levelled against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Police Officer; (iii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the application and shall not change the same without permission of the Court; (iv) shall not commit any offence while being on bail vide this order. The application stands disposed of. Hamdast allowed. In view of disposal of Criminal Application No. 1306/2010, Criminal APPP No.793/2010, Criminal APPP No.799/2010 and Criminal APPP No.936/2010 also stand disposed of. JUDGE Gulande