1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Rev. Application No. 11 of 2011 Bipin v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R. Darda, Advocate for applicant. Mr A. Parihar, APP for respdt-State Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J Dated: 19th July 2011 1. By this revision application, the applicant has assailed the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by 4th Adhoc District Judge, Nagpur rejecting applicant’s application for discharge. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length and perused the application (exhibit 95) and the order impugned herein passed below it. 2. Applicant is original accused no. 4. It is the prosecution case that accused no. 1 conspired with accused no. 2 and 3 and on 29.2.2000 they kidnapped one Animesh Agrawal from Baidyanath Square, Nagpur and released him on 11.3.2000 after getting ransom. Prosecution alleges that the present applicant (accused no.4) and original accused no. 5 helped accused no. 1 to flee from the clutches of police. It is stated in the application (exhibit 95) that prosecution allegations against 2 applicant and accused no. 5 were one and the same. Accused no. 5 had made application for discharge, but that application was rejected as against which he had filed Criminal Revision Application No. 191/2004. That criminal revision has been allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.1.2010 (A. B. Chaudhari, J). Claiming that prosecution allegations are same or similar against the present applicant, he also made application for discharge which has been rejected by the impugned order, as aforesaid. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that there is no legally admissible evidence available against him that he had knowledge of the fact that accused no. 1 Arunkumar and others committed offences under Sections 364, 342, 328, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the prosecution erred in implicating the applicant for an offence punishable under Section 212 of the Penal Code. He further contends that brother of accused no.1 has clearly stated that relations between the two families were not cordial and, therefore, there is possibility of false implication of the applicant. 4. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has recorded various statements including the statement of one Amitkumar who is real brother of accused no. 1 Arun. He stated that when police came to their house, Arun disclosed his 3 name as “Shyam Naka” out of fright and left with present applicant Bipin for his house and since then he (Arun) has not come back. He further stated that even though the fact that police were searching for Arun, the revision applicant Bipin took took Arun to his house. He further stated that where Arun was taken and where he was hidden after 15.3.2000 was within the knowledge of Bipin. It is the prosecution allegation that accused nos. 1,2 and 3 with the help of present applicant kidnapped Animesh Agrawal for ransom. Witness Amitkumar has also given similar statement. Thus, the charge against the revision applicant cannot be termed as “groundless”. 5. On perusal of the statements of the said two witnesses, there is material on record to show that present applicant concealed main accused Arun. Applicant cannot claim parity with Govindkumar Agrawal whose application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.1.2010 since no witness made any statement against Govindkumar and no material was prima facie found against him showing his involvement in the crime, parity cannot be claimed with him. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon rulings in Emperor v. Latoor reported in AIR 1930 Allahabad 33; Niranjan v. State of Orissa reported in 1992 Cri.L. J. 1863 and Sanjiv Kumar etc. v. State of HP reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 4 1138. In Niranjan’s case (supra) the Apex Court in paragraph 5 observed thus : “In the instant case, there is no material whatsoever to show that the appellant had the knowledge or that he reasonably believed that he was harbouring or concealing a person who is an offender. The essential feature secrecy is totally absent. No explanation regarding omission of appellant;s name in the information before police is forthcoming. We are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was guilty of the offence as alleged. Consequentially, we have no hesitation in setting aside the conviction and sentence and acquitting the appellant.” It is pertinent to note that in all the above cases, the Apex Court and the Allahabad High Court were dealing with the cases in appeal after conviction of the accused concerned. In the present case, applicant seeking his discharge, has approached this Court in its revisional jurisdiction after his application for discharge has been rejected by the trial Court. Hence, none the above rulings which were on merits post trial is applicable to the case at hand. 7. No case is made out by the applicant/accused for his discharge from the criminal trial. The trial Court has examined the matter and on the basis of material available on 5 record has rejected the application for discharge and in my opinion, rightly so. 8. Viewed from any angle, therefore, this is not a fit case where the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE joshi