1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 864 OF 2010 Nilkanth @ Nilubhau Annasaheb Chate ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents ..... Shri R.N.Dhorde, learned counsel instructed by Shri S.V.MUndhe, advocate for the applicant Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondents. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 18th March, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri R.N.Dhorde, learned counsel instructed by Shri S.V.MUndhe, advocate for the applicant and Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondents. 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest under CR No. 12 of 2010, registered at Parli (Gramin) police station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 332, 341, 352 2 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Public Property Damages Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, on the complaint lodged by one Yuvraj Vitthaldas Gujar, General Manager of Thermal Power Station, Parali. 3 On perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., lodged by the complainant Yuvraj Vitthaldas Gujar, learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the fact that the name of the applicant herein has not figured in the F.I.R. during the occurrence of the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that there is no role and any overt act attributed to the applicant during the occurrence of the incident in the said F.I.R. 4 Learned A.P.P. urged that during the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and some of the statements reflect that the applicant was leading on the front at the time of alleged occurrence of the incident and he is a main person behind the occurrence of the incident. Learned A.P.P. further urged that the investigation is still under progress. 5 After perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned 3 counsel for the parties, it is significant to note that the name of the applicant herein has not been reflected in the F.I.R. during the occurrence of incident and no role as well as overt act has been attributed to the applicant. Even on perusal of the statements of the witnesses during the course of investigation, it does apparently reveal that the applicant was leading on the front at the time of occurrence of the incident. Moreover, nothing is to be recovered from the applicant during the investigation, and hence, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 6 In the result, present application succeeds and the interim protection granted to the applicant stands confirmed and it is directed that, in the event of arrest of the applicant under CR No. 12 of 2010, registered at Parli (Gramin) police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 332, 341, 352 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Public Property Damages Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount. The applicant is directed to cooperate in the investigation and the applicant shall attend the police station as and when required. This order shall remain in force till filing of the 4 charge sheet. These observations are prima facie and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order duly signed by the Court Sheristedar. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/crap864.10