1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO402 OF 2011 Rajendra Anandrao Bhosale ...Applicant. v/s State ...Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.392 OF 2011 Mr. Nitin T. Falke ...Applicant v/s. The State ...Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.475 OF 2011 Vinod S. Mahalungkar ..Applicant. v/s. The State and Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Subhash Zha i/by M/s Law Global, advs. For the Applicant (in ABA No.402/2011 and ABA No.475/2011) and i/by Shri Subhash Hulyalkar, adv. For the applicant. (in ABA No.392/2011) Mr.K.V.Saste, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA,J. DATED : AUGUST 18,2011. P.C. 1 The applicants in all these three applications seek anticipatory bail in crime no.30 of 2011 registered at the Chakan Police Station, District: Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326, 427, 442, 447, 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 and 120-B of 2 the I.P.C. 2 The report of the incident was lodged by one Ganesh Ashok Shivale. According to him, he alongwith his mother and brother had been to the house of his maternal uncle Santosh J. Walke for dinner at about 8 p.m. on 11.2.2001. At that time, he came to know that some persons had beaten some persons residing in the rental house of his maternal uncle Santosh. At that time hearing the sound of pelting stones, breaking the window glasses of the tempo and other vehicles and hue and cry of the large number of people, the said Ganesh, his maternal uncle and others came out. At that time mob of about 63 named persons and about 100 unnamed persons assembled there. They were having stones, iron pipes, iron bars, swords, sickles, etc. Accused NO.1 Rajendra Anandrao Bhosale and accused no.2 Vinod Sahdev Mhalungkar, who are the applicants before this Court, were leading the mob and were instigating members of the mob to assault and finish Santosh. They first assaulted Santosh with the iron pipes in their hands. Some other persons assaulted 3 him with swords, iron bars, sickles and sticks. In that incident Santosh was severely injured and some other persons were also injured. After the incident, assailants ran away. Thereafter, injured Santosh and other injured persons were sent to Niradham Hospital, Pimpri, while Ganesh went to Chakan police station to lodge the report. Santosh died because of multiple injuries and five other persons suffered several injuries. As per the F.I.R. because of political and business rivalry, accused no.1 Rajendra assaulted Santosh and committed murder with the help of mob with him. 3 While all the three applicants claim anticipatory bail, applicant no.1/ Rajendra and the applicant no.2/ Vinod particularly contended that they were not present at the scene of offence and they were present at such distance that their presence at the scene of offence was impossible. Thus, they had taken a plea of alibi. It appears that the applicant Rajendra also filed writ petition seeking direction to the police to consider the material available with them and also with other 4 witnesses to show that he was not present at the scene of the offence. On behalf of the State, statement was made that the concerned police officer will investigate the matter. In view that statement, petition was disposed off. In the present application, grievance is that the the Investigating Officer has not considered the material available that he has refused to record the statements of witnesses, who would depose that the applicant/accused nos.1 and 2 were not present at the scene of the offence and they were present at Shri Kshetra Bhandara Dongar where Akhand Hari Nam Saptah was going on and where at the relevant time, religious discourse was being rendered by one Pramodji Maharaj. According to them, there are also certain CDs to show their presence away from the spot of incident. They have also produced several receipts showing that the accused no.1 had actually received certain donations from the devotees during the relevant time at Shri Kshetra Bhandara Dongar for the religious function. Heard the learned counsel and perused documents, which are also 5 produced in support of that petition. 4 Incident occurred at Village: Mhalunge, which is about 6 kms away from the police station. Incident occurred on 11.2.2011 after 8 p.m. Report was lodged on 12.2.2011 at 00.35 hours, i.e., almost immediately. Injured persons were taken to Pimpri Hospital and were examined at about 11.35 p.m. during the same night. Pimpri is said to be situated at about 25 kms., from the scene of the incident. To take so many injured persons from the place of incident to the hospital at about 25 kms., they were required to collect many vehicles and to put patients in those vehicles and then to take those patients to the hospital at Pimpri. Record reveals that examination of all the injured persons took place at 11.35 p.m. In view of this, it appears that the incident must have come to an end prior to 10 p.m. Shri Kshetra Bhandara Dongar, where religious function was going on from 8.45 p.m. onwards is 7 kms away from the spot of the incident according to prosecution while according to the learned counsel for the applicants, distance is 6 about 15 kms. Accused nos.1 and 2 have taken plea of alibi. Their contention is that large number of persons, who may be called defence witnesses, had actually filed affidavit before the Magistrate with request that their statements may be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It was alleged that those persons were produced before the police but their statements were not recorded in spite of the directions given by the High Court and thus, the police failed in discharging their duty. Presuming that all these allegations true and presuming that those persons would be making statements before the Magistrate on the line on which the affidavits were filed and also presuming that their affidavits are true, we have to find out whether prima-facie, plea of alibi is acceptable. All these affidavits reveal that these applicants had reached at Shri Kshetra Bhandara Dongar at 10.15 p.m. If the incident had taken place between 8 to 10 p.m., taking into consideration the short distance and vehicle available with the applicants, it was not impossible for them to reach that place at 10.15 p.m. and to 7 attend the function. Thereafter applicant no.1 Rajendra could prepare and issue receipts of the donations made by the devotees. In view of all this material, it is difficult to accept plea of alibi and to grant anticipatory bail on that ground. 5 Offence of murder was committed because of political and business rivalry by mob of a large number of persons led by the accused no.1 Rajendra and accused no.2 Vinod. They themselves led the mob and assault. Names of the culprits were given in the F.I.R. immediately after the incident. In these circumstances, matter needs proper investigation. Provisions of anticipatory bail are to be exercised where there is possibility of false implication and harassment on account of political, economical , social or other rivalry or reasons or when custodial interrogation is not at all necessary. In the present case, prima-facie, it can not be stated that false case has been filed because one person was murdered and he had suffered multiple injuries. Several other persons were injured in the incident. They were taken immediately to the hospital. F.I.R. 8 was lodged immediately. Names of a large number of culprits, particularly the applicants, are shown in the F.I.R. Taking into consideration the serious nature of the offence, custodial interrogation appears to be necessary. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 6 Therefore, application stands dismissed. Mr. Zha the learned counsel for the applicants makes a request that ad-interim protection granted by this court to these applicants be continued for some more time. In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, I am not impressed. Request turned down. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)