1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1696 of 2010 Sunil kumar @ S.Kumar @ Nargarjuna Vishnudeo Prasad, actually named as Sunil Kumar S/o Vishnudeo Prasad ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Sadar, Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. G.M.Shitut, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. C.N.Adgokar, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 19 th Novem ber , 2010 . Heard. The applicant is seeking his release on bail in crime no. 3316/2006, registered with Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 9(1)(B) of the Explosives Substances Act r/w Sections 3, 4/25, of Arms Act and Sections 10, 13, 18, 20, 21 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. A report came to be lodged against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant was found in illegal possession of the arms and ammunition. Mr. Shitut, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that bare perusal of the report would show that there is no mention of the applicant in the report and the crime is registered against three persons namely Giriprasad Laxmanacharya, Shriniwas Birayya and Jaypal Nageshwarrao and only on suspicion, the applicant is involved in the said crime. The material available with the investigating agency is not sufficient to connect the applicant with the crime registered at Nagpur, whereas that material is in connection with 2 some other crime registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the only material available with the investigating agency was one confessional statement, which is in Telgu language. He further submitted that the statement does not bear the signature of the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. He, therefore, prayed for releasing the applicant on bail. Mr. Adgokar, learned APP has filed reply on behalf of the State and strongly opposed the application. Learned APP submitted that in the investigation of said crime registered at Nagpur, it was revealed that the applicant is involved in the said crime. It also revealed that the applicant is indulged in providing arms and ammunition to the various groups involved in anti-social and anti- national activities. He further submitted that the applicant being resident of State of Uttar Pradesh, there is every possibility that if he is released on bail, he may not be available for investigation, which will hamper the prosecution case and will result in futile exercise. Learned APP also submitted that the offence is serious one as large quantity of arms and ammunition was found. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. Perusal of the record show that the applicant had moved an application for grant of bail before the Sessions Court, Nagpur, which was rejected vide order dated 06/10/2010. The ground of not bearing signature of applicant on confessional statement was raised in that application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that he has gone through the original confessional statement of the accused, which bears his signature. As such, I have no reason to disbelieve the observation of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur. 3 Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is tried to be shown as one Mr. Nagarjuna, but the applicant is actually Sunil Kumar. Learned APP per contra submits that there is sufficient material against the applicant and only to mislead the investigating agency, the applicant is raising this ground which is inconsequential. On consideration of the submissions of learned Advocate for the applicant and the material available with the investigating agency, I am of the opinion that there is prima facie material to connect the applicant. It is also not in dispute that the applicant is not resident of Maharashtra State and apprehension expressed by learned APP is justified. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale