1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3236/2009 (Mohd.Taufique s/o Mohd. Sharif vs. State of Maharashtra ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr A A Sonak Adv.for applicant Mr D B Patel APP for Respondent *** C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 12 th October, 2 009. 1. Heard. By this application, the applicant prays for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.142/2009 reported at Lakadghanj Police Station, Nagpur for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the applicant has not committed the crime but his name has been stated by the complainant because he knew name of the brother of the applicant. As such, he prayed for anticipatory bail. 2. Learned APP objected grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant has been avoiding investigation by remaining absconding and he along with ten others were involved in accusations for serious offences punishable u/ss. 307, 143, 147 read with section 149 of the IPC read with 4/25 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that the applicant and his associates forcibly recovering from the complainant party collection of money towards Ursa of Tanjim Baba, which was opposed by another group, thereby resulting in the quarrel pursuant to which the incident of assault had occurred in which the applicant and his associates were armed with sword, iron rod sticks and had assaulted complainant-party. During the course of investigation, statements of all those who were assaulted have been recorded. Anticipatory 2 bail is also objected on the ground that the applicant is a hard-core criminal having as many as ten offences registered against him, on various serious accusations, as elicited from the reply filed on behalf of the Respondent- State. According to Investigating Agency, the applicant has been avoiding arrest despite continued efforts made by the Investigating Agency. 3. Considered the submissions at the Bar. In view of the serious accusations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation would be sine qua non to elicit material information from the accused as also recovery/ discovery of weapon of offence. Considering the past criminal cases reported against the applicant, an order us/ 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as s shield against such serious accusations. The Investigating Agency must be allowed to proceed with investigation as permissible according to law. Application is rejected. JUDGE. sahare