1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.99/2011 (Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Yunus .vrs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. A.B. Mirza, Advocate for applicant, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for non-applicant/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J DATED : APRIL 11, 2011 Heard. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 18.3.2011 ad-interim protection in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was granted to the applicant regarding arrest apprehended by him in connection with Crime No. 24/2011 registered with Police Station, Akot for offence under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC. The said offence was registered in respect of theft of mobile tower batteries committed in a night of 22.11.2010 at Chandikapur tower. The learned APP has objected confirming the direction given on the ground that on the information received on 4.2.2011 that some stolen goods were to be transported by TATA vehicle, the investigating officer had effected raid and during the same, about 24 mobile 2 tower batteries were seized and two accused persons namely Mustaq Khan Mubhnas Khan and Syed Irfan Syed Subhan effecting the said work apprehended having disclosed the name of the present applicant as the main accused for whom they were transporting the said goods. It is urged that the said matters are found corroborated by the statement of the owner of the said TATA vehicle namely Shri Abdul Nayeem that his said transport vehicle was engaged by the present applicant. It is urged that one co-accused namely Jafar being absconding and the remaining stolen property is yet to be recovered and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, as he is the main culprit. The said submission were rightly countered by the learned counsel for the applicant by pointing that the first information is lodged about the theft of batteries of Reliance Company and Idea Company while the goods allegedly recovered during raid is that of different companies. The learned APP was unable to refute the said submission and so also further submission that hardly any independent material has been collected during the course of investigation showing nexus of the applicant regarding the theft for which first information was lodged on 4.2.2011. Though learned APP tried to justify said submission by stating that the batteries of the Reliance company and Idea company stolen were dismantled and the lead from the same was also tried to be transported by the said vehicle, the learned APP was not able to pinpoint any independent material from the case diary revealing nexus of the applicant with the said act. 3 Having regard to the same, ad-interim direction given will deserve to be confirmed. However, considering the nature of the crime committed and the fetters upon the investigating agency, it will be appropriate to impose necessary condition to ensure that the best investigation could be effected by the investigating officer. In view of the same, ad-interim direction given on 18.3.2011 is hereby confirmed with the modification that now the applicant shall attend the investigating officer on every alternate day for a period of 15 days and, thereafter, on every Monday until filing of the charge sheet. The investigating officer on every such date shall give acknowledgment of applicant having attended him and applicant shall insist for giving same. In event of failure of applicant to attend as ordered, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled automatically and the Investigating Officer will be free to arrest the applicant subject to sending the report of same to the court within 24 hours. The rest of the direction given by the said order stand unmodified. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE Gulande