1 CA-5383.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5383 OF 2010 IN MECR NO.13 OF 2006 Rajendra Dhondu Bhosale .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with S.S. Parab and M.G. Shukla for the Applicant. Ms Alpa T. Jhaveri, APP, for the State. S/Shri Rizwan Merchant with Swapnil Wagh for the original complainant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: DECEMBER 02, 2010 P.C: 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by a Police Sub-Inspector who apprehends his arrest in MECR No.13 of 2006, registered under Sections 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 200 and 211 of the IPC and Section 58 r/w Sections 8(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 3 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act at M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. 2. The allegations in the context of which 2 CA-5383.10 the present application is made and which would be gathered from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the original complainant and the learned APP are as under: The complainant Rajesh Solanki claims to have arranged for some finance to one Ravindra Shelatkar, a builder. The said Shelatkar utilised the money elsewhere rather than the project for which the finance was provided and then refused to pay back. Solanki had been insisting on repayment of the money which had been advanced. Shelatkar is alleged to have called Solanki to his office on 19-10-2004. Shelatkar was himself not in the office. There was one P.R. Sundaram. The said Sundaram kept Solanki engaged in talks till he received a chit where-after he allowed Solanki to leave. As soon as Solanki came out of the office of Shelatkar in Jogeshwari, he was picked up by the applicant and his team and was carried in a vehicle to Dongri Police Station. Solanki s father lodged a missing complaint on the next morning. Thereafter, Solanki was shown to have been arrested in Dongri Police Station pursuant to an information which the applicant claims to have received. A foreign made 3 CA-5383.10 revolver and some powder was seized from a pouch on the seat of the motorcycle of Solanki. An offence was registered against Solanki bearing C.R. No.4 of 2004 of Dongri Police Station under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. 3. One Naval Bajaj, Deputy Commissioner of Police, suspected some foul play because of the missing complaint and therefore the investigation was transferred to PI Ambre of M.R.A. Marg Police Station. On completion of the investigation, the PI found that Solanki had been framed up and, therefore, submitted a B Summary. This B Summary has been considered by the learned Judge, Special Court under the NDPS Act. While he has accepted the B Summary, he did not order prosecution because in the meantime Solanki had filed a criminal complaint before a Magistrate who had ordered investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.. The crime in which anticipatory bail is sought is registered pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted, first, that the offences which the 4 CA-5383.10 applicant is alleged to have committed and punishable under the IPC are all bailable. As far as the offence punishable under Section 58 of the NDPS Act, he submitted that it is punishable with imprisonment for six months. Even the offence punishable under Section 29 would not attract a more severe punishment in view of the fact that the narcotic substance which was allegedly seized from Solanki was not of commercial quantity. He also submits that the offence itself was registered in the year 2006. Four years have already passed and the investigation must have been substantially complete and, therefore, even custody for the purpose of interrogation or further investigation may not be necessary. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant Solanki as well as the learned APP contest this proposition. They submit that whether the offence is punishable with imprisonment for six months or not is not relevant. What has to be found out is the source of the foreign made revolver which, prima facie, had been planted by the applicant as also the narcotic substance, since a police officer is not supposed to have been in possession of both these items. Therefore, custodial interrogation 5 CA-5383.10 of the applicant is necessary. Considering the nature of the allegations made and the seriousness thereof, it would be necessary to subject the applicant to custodial interrogation since the source of the foreign made revolver and the narcotic substance would have to be found out to go to the root of the rot that has set in the police force. In view of this, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)