1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No. 267 of 2011 (Mohan Bhaskarrao Nichit ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. Shegaon, Distt. Buldhana) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Nitesh Samudre, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the Respondent CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 18.8.2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 22.8.2011. 1. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Shegaon Police Station, Crime No. 74/2011, registered for offence punishable under Section 170, 171, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”) and Section 149 of the Bombay Police Act (B.P. Act), has filed this application for release on bail prior to his arrest. 2. The police complaint has been filed by one Rupchand Bhuraji Tople alleging as follows:- Complainant Rupchand was introduced by the accused Arun Shelke to the accused Sharad Dhoke who gave his name wrongly as Raju Gawande. On 09/06/2011 between 2.30 pm to 4.00 p.m. Rupchand was called by said Sharad Dhoke (Raju) at 2 Guru Gajanan Guest House with cash under pretext of selling gold to him at cheap price. The accused Sharad Dhoke and accused Vasanta Patil took cash of Rs. 3,15,000 from Rupchand and Vasant went outside on the pretext that he would bring the tin containing gold kept with his wife. Subsequently, the accused Vasanta showed the metal pieces in the said tin, appearing like gold and, subsequently, they accompanied the complainant to Arvi in order to ascertain purity of gold from the goldsmith. The complainant was made to sit in the vehicle which was taken to Balapur road and in the meantime Sharad stopped the car stating that he wanted to pass urine. At that time, the vehicle of white colour came from Shegaon side, from which allegedly the present applicant along with some other accused persons got down. The person in police uniform is alleged to be the applicant. The accused Sharad and Vasanta along with the present applicant sat in the said vehicle brought by the present applicant and went away along with cash and gold like metal. 3. In the present application, the applicant has alleged that he is not at all concerned with the said crime and does not know the other accused persons in the crime. He has stated that even his name is not appearing in the F.I.R. He has pointed out that in the FIR it is mentioned that the person who was wearing police uniform was aged about 22 to 27 years. The applicant is however 49 years old and though he is serving in police, he is under 3 suspension. According to the applicant, on 17/06/2011, Shegaon Police had come to the Police Headquarter, Amravati in search of the applicant and they had checked the muster register. The applicant says that, thereafter, Shegaon Police even went to his house and disclosed about the present crime to his family members and informed that they had come to arrest the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is apprehending his arrest for non-bailable offence. 4. By way of reply, the respondent has resisted the application stating that the complainant has identified the applicant from photograph. The respondent says that the applicant is master-mind behind the crime and his presence in custody is required to recover the four wheeler used in the crime and also the police uniform used by him. 5. Heard Mr. Nitesh Samudre, learned Advocate on behalf of the Applicant and Mr. S. S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the Respondent. 6. Perused the case papers made available to me by the learned A.P.P. 7. It is seen that in the oral report the person who was wearing police uniform has not been properly described by his 4 physical features and has been stated to be aged about 22 to 23 years. However, the present applicant is 49 years old. There is therefore doubt about complicity of the present applicant. 8. Even otherwise, the record prima facie reveals that the only role played by the said person who was in police uniform was to bring the white coloured vehicle and to take away the other accused persons who were having the cash and the metal appearing to be like gold. 9. At the instance of the accused Sharad Dhoke, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been already recovered and from the statement made by Sharad Dhoke it is revealed that the remaining amount is with the accused Vasanta. 10. In view of the conditions which were imposed upon the applicant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon while granting ad-interim bail in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 184/2011, the applicant was attending the Shegaon Police Station regularly on every alternate day and he has already been interrogated. For attaching the police uniform of the applicant, his detention in custody is not required. There is no proper description of the white colour four wheeler. 5 11. In my view, no purpose will be served by detaining the applicant in police custody in the event of his arrest. The applicant is therefore entitled for anticipatory bail under appropriate conditions. 12. In the result, (i) The application is allowed. (ii) In the event of the arrest of the applicant, in Shegaon Police Station Crime No. 74/2011 registered for offence punishable under Sections 170, 171, 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 149 of the B.P. Act, he shall be released on bail upon execution of personal recognition bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties to make up for the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the following conditions namely:- (a) The applicant shall attend the Shegaon Police Station as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer to do so. (b) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. 6 (c) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (d) This order shall remain in force till the trial is over in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported in 2011(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 293. JUDGE Punde.