1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13 of 2008 Shyamjit Mataprasad Yadav .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.R.V. Bhasin i/b Vasant S. Bansode for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 22nd January 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the offence registered against him with Virar police station under C.R. No.I-297 of 2007 punishable u/s.395, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 of 2 the IPC and section 3(35) of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case in short is that one Mr. Ramsuman Yadav (hereinafter referred to as ’the complainant) had made a complaint about unauthorised constructions made in Survey No.332, Hissa No.4 when the government officers had gone for the site inspection the complainant, on their call, also went there. He showed them the land. Some time thereafter, the present applicant along with 13 other named persons and few other unidentified persons arrived at the spot. The applicant took out a revolver from his pocket and put it on the forehead of the applicant and thereafter incited the residents to assault the complainant stating that he had brought the government officers for the purpose of pulling down their huts. The complainant was thereafter assaulted and the applicant also robbed the complainant of the cash of Rs.5,000/- which was in his pocket. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the entire story was concocted and was unbelievable. Inviting my attention to the decision of Ram Lakhan Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1983 SC 352 and Lakshman Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1981 SC 1388 and contended that the case 3 of dacoity was unbelievable. Both the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant are rendered in appeal arising out of final order after trial and not in connection with the bail or anticipatory bail. In my view, this is not the stage for marshalling in detail the entire evidence. Only prima facie case is to be seen. Suffice it to say that two independent eye witnesses Mr.Santosh have stated about the assault to the applicant. One shopkeeper in the locality has also stated that about the assault and has also stated that he saw the applicant removing money from the pocket of the complainant. Thus there is a prima facie evidence showing the involvement of the applicant in the crime. 5. The offence of dacoity under section 395 is a serious offence and is punishable with Imprisonment for life or Imprisonment upto 10 years. Learned APP for the State submits that investigation is still in progress and presence of the applicant is necessary for custodial investigation into the offence especially when the applicant pointed revolver at the complainant. The complainant admittedly does not possess an arms licence and therefore, submits the learned APP, it is necessary to investigate how the applicant came in possession of unlicensed firearm. 4 6. Learned APP submits that applicant is also involved in two other offences viz. Crime No.298 of 2007 punishable with section 143(1), 147 and Crime No.283/07 punishable under section 143, 147, 159, 353, 332, 336 of the IPC. 6. Taking an overall view of the matter and taking into consideration that applicant was possessed of an unlicenced fire arm, which has been corroborated by independent witnesses, the presence of the applicant is necessary for the purpose of custodial investigation into the crime including the serious crime of dacoity. Hence, application for bail is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J)