1 Criminal Application No.90/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2011 Sunil @ Dada Narayan Nath ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 8th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. The accused/ applicant seeks exercise of powers of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The arrested accused disclosed the police authorities that the countrymade firearm procured by him for vending was so supplied accused/ applicant as one of the purchaser. The arrested accused has also disclosed names of other accused, who were put under arrest and from one Sandip, based on such disclosure, two firearms, 10 live cartridges were taken charge. The contention that accused is falsely implicated, at this stage is difficult to comprehend. 2 Criminal Application No.90/2011 3. The learned A.P.P. submits, there are at least 11 prosecutions faced by the accused/ applicant. Mr. Jadhav retorts, there were such 8 prosecutions faced by him, the accused/ applicant is acquitted in 4 of the cases, one case has turned into ‘B’ Summary (F.I.R. No.123/2010 relating to Arms Act) while two cases are pending. He further submits that, based on earlier interim protection, the accused/ applicant has recorded regular attendance. Nothing is recovered from him, his liberty could not be curtailed. 4. It is apparent, there are as of today two cases pending against the accused/ applicant involving infraction of Sections 147, 148, 149 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Even if they are politically motivated, the fact remains, accused has to face the prosecution. The provision of anticipatory bail is not to be used as a shield to the persons who are prima facie involved in commission of the crime, but a protection given to those who are noticably indicated to be facing and likely to be humiliated due to such arrest. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (2010 ALL SCR 2725) in para 122 have indicated the factors and parameters for considering anticipatory bail. Applying these tests and yardsticks, I find the accused/ applicant does not fit in any of the categories. 3 Criminal Application No.90/2011 Consequently, the interim protection dated 17.1.2011 is terminated. Vacated. Application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is rejected. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri90.11