1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.372 OF 2010. RAJENDRA S/O MADHURKARRAO TONGO VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PSO PANDHARKAWADA ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri K. H. Deshpande, Senior Advoate with Shri V. M. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. K. S. Joshi, APP for respondent State. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010. 1. This Court had issued notice and granted ad interim protection by order dated 3-3-2010. 2. The applicant is one amongst the 9 accused persons who have been named in the First Information Report. The report is lodged by the wife of the deceased. The contents of the First Information Report are based on the suicide note written by the deceased husband of the complainant. 2 3. Perused the case diary and the suicide note. The contents of suicide note are substantially reproduced in the first information report. The learned APP has also given emphasis to the text of the First Information Report appearing at page 15 & 16 of the paper book. It discloses that being fade up due to trouble caused by Shri Tongo (applicant no.1), Mr.Choundikar, Mr. Sopan Potalwar (applicant no.2), Mr. Shaikh Clerk and T. B. Shukla, the deceased committed the suicide. It is also stated that the journalists mentioned in the suicide note have been demanding money at the instigation of the officers from the deceased and are blackmailing him. 4. The news items relied upon are for enquiry relating to illicit felling of trees in the Patanbori Compartment for acts and omissions of deceased Gopal Kale and Rajan Tongo (applicant no.1) and also towards various other acts of the deceased and applicant no.1. 5. At this stage, accepting version contained in the suicide note and the FIR based thereon to be the gospel truth even then these imputations by themselves do not describe the facts which would constitute “abatement to commit suicide”. 3 6. The case diary discloses that the statements of few witnesses have been recorded. Nothing specific is seen emerging from these statements demonstrating the exact acts of the accused amounting to “abatement to suicide”. 7. In this background, prima facie on what is disclosed from the complaint and suicide note, the deceased must have committed suicide as sum effect or whatever he has thought, however, no specific acts of abatement are attributable to the applicants. 8. The offence was registered on 22-2-2010 and interim protection has been granted in favour of the applicant by this Court on 3-3-2010. This Court had directed the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called. 9. It is not the grievance of the prosecution that the applicant did not attend the Investigating Officer when called or otherwise failed to cooperate. 10. Two other accused who had filed application in 4 the Sessions Court have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur by its order dated 26-2-2010. 11. In the situation at hand, therefore, the applicants have the case of grant of protection by way of anticipatory bail. 12. In the result, this Court is satisfied taht the interim order passed on 3-3-2010 deserves to be made absolute and is made absolute. 13. The applicants shall attend the Investigating Officer for 7 days from Monday i.e. 22-3-2010 between 10.30 a.m. To 2.30 p.m., and thereafter as and when directed by the I.O. 14. Hamdast allowed. Judge //mule//