1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3116 OF 2010 Sayyad Azim s/o Sayyad Rahim Applicant V E R S U S The State and another Respondent Mr. S.J. Salgare, Adv h/f Mr. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the appellant Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 8th October, 2010 PER COURT : 1. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 172 of 2010 of Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded. The applicant and one more person is charged under Sections 109, 118, 120-B, 217, 218, 219, 465 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicant was working as Police Inspector of Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded, in August, 2006. The other accused was working as Police Sub-Inspector at the same police station. One Shri. Rathod was working as Police Head Constable at the relevant time at the same police station. 3. The prosecution alleges that the applicant and the other accused conspired, and, in an attempt to help a person, who was then accused in a murder case, to escape the punishment, made certain changes in a station diary entries of Bhagyanagar Police Station on 28th August, 2006. The Police Head Constable Shri. Rathod has categorically stated as to how the incident took place and how he was compelled by the applicant to change the timings of the entries, he had already taken. Due to the intervention of the applicant and other 2 accused, Shri. Rathod was compelled to change the timings of certain station diary entries from 5.15 to 4.15. A copy of this forged station diary entry was produced before the Court as defence material and with the help of such entry the accused got acquittal. The role attributed to the present applicant is of serious nature. He was senior most police officer at the relevant time. He allowed changes to be made in the timings of the station diary entries and has thereby committed a serious offence. I aware that this incident took place in 2006 and the complaint is belatedly made in 2010, still the gravity of the offence is not reduced by passage of time. In such a case, unless custodial interrogation is made, other details of the incident would not come to light. The other similarly placed accused Giyasoddin, the Police Sub Inspector failed to obtain similar relief from this Court. In view of this, the application shall fail. The Criminal Application stands rejected. The observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application and shall not influence the trial Court at the relevant time. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/ca/3116/10