1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5046 OF 2009 Shri Mahesh Baburao Patil ..... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for the applicant. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.I-348 of 2009 registered at Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act and in respect of the complaint under section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act which was registered with Crime 2 Investigation Department, Kalyan Unit, Thane. 3. Applicant claims to be a builder and respectable member of the society. He is also carrying on business as cable operator. It is also alleged that sister of the applicant is a doctor by profession and she has her dispensary in Dombivali. He is also in the business of supplying raw material and is income-tax payer. 4. P.S.I. attached to the Crime Investigation Department, Kalyan Unit, Thane, received an information that some persons viz. Ravishankar Tiwari and Prashant Shelar alongwith other associates were traveling in Maruti Swift Car with an intention to commit dacoity at 10.00 p.m. Accordingly, raid was organized by calling panch witnesses and they apprehended the said vehicle. Three persons from the said vehicle ran away and two persons were apprehended at the spot who disclosed names of the persons who had absconded. In their statements, they informed the police that the persons who fled were Surendra Pandurang @ Balaram, Sagar Chavan and Patil. They stated that they did not know full name of the said Patil. Thereafter, the said two persons were arrested and brought to the Police Station and an offence was registered. During the 3 course of investigation, one of the absconding accused viz. Surendra Pandurang Chaudhary was arrested. Investigation was made. The accused who were arrested, later on filed an application for bail and they were granted regular bail by the Sessions Court at Kalyan on 26/8/2009 and 8/9/2009. In the initial application for remand, name of one Patil was mentioned. However, name of the present applicant was mentioned in the remand report for the first time. Apprehending arrest, he filed an application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court which came to be rejected and the Sessions Court, on the basis of material which was on record, prima facie came to the conclusion that the applicant also must have participated in the said incident. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently urged that the applicant is a respectable member of the society and though there were some other pending cases against him, these offences were not related to the offence punishable under sections 399, 400 or offence under section 392 etc. He submitted that the applicant is a builder by profession and is also a cable operator. He submitted that the applicant had filed complaint against the P.S.I for violation of human rights and, therefore, his name has been falsely 4 implicated. He further submitted that his political rival also had tried to implicate him in a murder case in the year 2007. It was strenuously urged that on account of political rivalry and at the best of the said Investigating Officer as also his political rival, his name was falsely implicated in the present case. The learned Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the order passed by the Sessions Court wherein bail was granted. He invited my attention to the observations made by the Sessions Court in respect of the said applicant viz. Surendra Chaudhari who was also not found at the spot. The following observations were made by the Sessions Court in para 6 of the order:- “6] ........ Thus the applicant was not found on the spot. There is no evidence to show that the applicant alongwith the other accused was assembled on the place of incident having made preparation to commit dacoity. No any weapon has been seized from him.” It is submitted that, therefore, the Sessions Court, while rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant, had clearly erred in 5 making the observation that the applicant, prima facie, must have participated in the said incident when the present applicant was not apprehended at the spot. 6. The learned APP has also pointed out that the present incident took place on 21/7/2009. Applicant had been absconding and was not traced. He, however, filed complaint against the Investigating Officer on 9/11/2009 and, thereafter, has filed this present application for anticipatory bail. 7. In my view, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. Firstly, it is a well settled position in law that parameters which are to be taken into consideration while granting anticipatory bail are different and distinct. Therefore, observations made by the Sessions Court in the application for bail filed by Surendra Chaudhari are not relevant. Secondly, the complaint filed by the applicant against the Investigating Officer on 9/11/2009 obviously appears to be an afterthought and, therefore, it cannot be a ground for considering his application for anticipatory bail. Thirdly, the submission of the applicant is that his political rival had named him as co-accused in the murder of his son in the year 2007. This submission also, in my view, cannot be a ground for 6 granting anticipatory bail because name of the said political rival does not figure in the present complaint. Moreover, on information received by the Police, two persons were apprehended at the spot and they were in possession of weapons and other equipments which are normally used in the crime of dacoity and chilly powder was also found in the Swift Car. The applicant was absconding after the offence was registered. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet had to be filed. Mere filing of the charge-sheet, therefore, cannot be a ground for granting anticipatory bail. There is no substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. This is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 8. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.)