[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2329 OF 2008 Anil Tukaram Mohite ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.O.A.Siddique & Abhijeet Salve Advocate for Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.143 of 2008 of Hinjewadi Police Police Station, Pune. The said case is mainly under Section 399 of IPC. 3. On 22.6.2008 police received information that one Vinayak and his associates would be travelling by one Scorpio Jeep No.MH-14/BK-2000 and on two motor-cycles and they were to commit dacoity. [-2-] Hence, trap came to be arranged. The said Scorpio jeep was intercepted. So also two motor-cycles were intercepted. All the persons in the Scorpio Jeep and on the motor-cycles came to be apprehended except one person who ran away. The said person while running away, dropped the firearm in which four live cartridges were found. It is the prosecution case that the said person is the applicant. One of the witnesses who is Police Constable who was present in the raiding party, has identified the applicant as the person who ran away. From the vehicle and from some of the persons who were apprehended, in all 11 firearms came to be seized. 4. Mr.Siddique submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as there was a political rivalry and the applicant got set aside the election of one person from his rival party and therefore there is enmity between the rival parties. Mr.Siddique submitted that the said matter was hotly contested and it was carried to the Supreme Court. He submitted that on the account of this rivalry, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In the present [-3-] case, the complainant is not any person from the rival party but he is a policeman. The information was received by the police and pursuant to the said information, they apprehended the vehicles and the accused persons. The material on record is such as to point out accusing finger towards the applicant. 5. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 19979. SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 19979. SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 19979. SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Looking to the material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Application is rejected and is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]