(1) Criminal Application No. 3608 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3608 of 2011 Abdul Sikandar s/o. Abdul Sajed, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Social Service, Elected as Corporator in the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, R/o. Chelipura, Aurangabad. .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra, through In-charge Police Station, Begampura, Aurangabad. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate, with Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, for the applicant. Smt. R.K. Ladda, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent / State. Mr. S.S. Ladda, Advocate, for the original complainant. ........................ (2) Criminal Application No. 3608 of 2011 CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, as well as, heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. I-50/2011, registered at Begampura Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 363, 323, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Farjana Begum w/o. Mushtak Ahmed, on 16th April 2011, alleging that on 15th April 2011, at about 22.30 hours, when she was in her house along with children, suddenly 3 - 4 boys armed with weapon i.e. sword came by white colour Fiesta Car bearing registration MH-20/7786, and knocked the door of the house of (3) Criminal Application No. 3608 of 2011 the complainant, asking "Fahat Hai Kya ?". Thereupon, complainant opened door of the house and thereafter, the said 3 - 4 boys who were armed with sword, straightway rushed into the house and out of the said boys, one was named as Imtiyaz Khan s/o. Sartaj Khan, and one of them who was tall and having blackish colour, stated "Mar Dalo, Chodo Mat, Kahan Hai Sumayya Siddiqui, jiske liye Imtiyaz ne hum longo ko yahan laya hai ?", and the said boys gave abuses and gave threats to kill showing sword. They were also saying, "Sumayya ko dhundo, Sumayya Dhundo, koi age aya to talwar se mar dalo". Accordingly, said boys intended to take away the daughter of the complainant, namely, Sumayya, forcibly. The resistence was offered but the said boys caught hold of complainant's daughter Sumayya and dragged her. The complainant was frightened, but still he relieved hands of her daughter from the said boys and thereafter said boys fled away. 4. It was canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, that the co-accused Mohd. Sumer has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Court on 22nd August 2011 and his case and the case of the applicant stand on the same footing, and therefore, applicant is also deserves grant of anticipatory bail in the present application. It is further canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel, that the name of the (4) Criminal Application No. 3608 of 2011 applicant has been neither reflected in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him in the occurrence of the incident and his name was surfaced in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded after two days i.e. on 18th April 2011. It is further canvassed that the investigation has been almost completed and nothing is to be recovered from the applicant. Besides, it is also pointed out that the co-accused, namely, Imtiyaz Khan, whose name was disclosed in the FIR, has been enlarged on bail, and hence, considering totality of the facts, it is submitted that there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant. It is also asserted by the learned Senior Counsel that the applicant is a Corporator of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, and he is not a person to be unnoticed and inspite of that, FIR is silent in respect of his name and identity, and therefore, applicant deserves grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned APP and the learned Counsel for the original complainant opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the complainant Farjana, who is mother of the victim girl, was frightened due to occurrence of the sudden incident and she gave further statement immediately after two days i.e. on 18th April 2011, stating the said position and disclosed name of the applicant in her supplementary statement, as one of the boys who was present and participated during the (5) Criminal Application No. 3608 of 2011 occurrence of the incident. It is further submitted by the learned APP, that the statement of victim's brother, namely, Fahad Ahmed Mushtak Ahmed, has been recorded, who categorically stated name of the applicant who entered into the house of the complainant and participated in the occurrence of the incident. It is also pointed out by the learned APP, that the case of Jafir Khan and the case of the applicant herein stand on the similar footing and the application for anticipatory bail preferred by co-accused Jafir Khan was rejected by this Court on 7th June 2011, and therefore, the applicant does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail. It is asserted by the learned APP, that the applicant is an influential person and he is pressurizing other witnesses and apprehension is posed, that if the present application is allowed, further investigation would be hampered. It is also pointed out by the learned APP, that the victim girl has lodged another complaint on 8-9-2011 under C.R. No. I-132/2011 against Imtiyaz and other co-accused persons wherein reference to the applicant has been made. Accordingly, learned APP urged that the present application which bears no substance deserves to be rejected. 6. After perusal of the investigation papers and after considering rival submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent / (6) Criminal Application No. 3608 of 2011 State, who is assisted by the learned Counsel for the original complainant, it is significant to note that although name of the applicant herein was not reflected in the FIR dated 16th April 2011, the complainant Farjana gave supplementary statement on 18th April 2011, stating that due to occurrence of the incident suddenly, she was frightened and her son Fahad also witnessed occurrence of the incident, who gave names of the assailants who were present at the time of occurrence of the incident including name of the applicant herein, and accordingly, the supplementary statement dated 18-4-2011 of the complainant discloses name of the applicant herein along with other co-accused persons including Jafir Khan, who were armed with the weapon i.e. sword at the time of occurrence of the incident, who attempted to forcibly take away daughter of the complainant. Moreover, statement of brother of victim girl, namely, Fahad Ahmed Mushtak Ahmed, also categorically discloses name of the applicant who was present and participated in the occurrence of the incident. Hence, it is apparent that there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the present crime. 7. Besides, name of Jafir Khan was also disclosed in the supplementary statement of complainant Farjana, as well as, statement of Fahad Ahmed Mushtak Ahmed, and his application for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court on 7th June 2011, (7) Criminal Application No. 3608 of 2011 and hence, since the case of said Jafir Khan and the case of the applicant herein stand on the similar footing, application preferred by the applicant for anticipatory bail also deserves to be rejected. 8. Apart from that, it is canvassed that the applicant, who is a Corporator, is an influencial person, and apprehension is posed, that if the present application is allowed and the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, and also pressurize the witnesses, and further investigation would be hampered, and the said apprehension cannot be ignored and overlooked. 9. Having comprehensive view of the matter, and considering accusations made against the applicant, and nature and gravity thereof, apparently, there is complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime, and therefore, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant therein, as well as, it is explicit that there is prima facie case against the applicant and hence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is imperative and inevitable for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. (8) Criminal Application No. 3608 of 2011 10. In the result, present Criminal Application lacks merits, and therefore, stands dismissed. Interim protection stands vacated, and present Application stands disposed of finally. 11. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/3608ka