1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 35/2011 (Vishnu Sakharam Tadam .vs. State of Maharashtra through PSO PS Deoli, Distt. Wardha) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. O.D. Kakde, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2011 . The reply filed by the APP is taken on record. Heard. By the present application, the applicant apprehending an arrest in connection with Crime No. 1/2011 registered with Police Station Deoli for commission of offence under Sections 353, 186, 294, 506, 332 of IPC and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, has prayed for a direction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The said crime was registered upon the FIR registered upon the written report given by Police Constable Manoj Suryawanshi of a Traffic Branch regarding the incident which had occurred on 6.1.2011 at about 12 noon at Bus Stand Deoli. It is the crux of the matters stated in said report that at the relevant time the said Police Constable had asked the boys causing 2 obstruction to the passengers by parking their motorcycles within Deoli Bus Stand to go out of the Bus Stand. It is the case in said report that the applicant had asked Traffic Constable whether himself/or his superior was having a G.R. for driving away the motorcyclists out of the said Stand. Thereon he had told the applicant that he has to perform his duty and applicant should not interfere. Thereafter the applicant is alleged to have caught collar of the said Constable and pushed him and abused in filthy language and further threatened that he would see as to how he performs the duty in the square and further threatened him to take his life. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that the matters in the said FIR are not depicting true and correct picture having real events occurred at the Bus Stand. The learned counsel urged that the applicant who is a social worker, had seen the Traffic Constable assaulting one boy within the precincts of S.T. Stand Deoli and he had intervened and inquired with the Constable who was thereon enraged and abused the applicant in filthy language and asked him to mind his own business. Thereafter the applicant had told the Police Constable that he will report the matter to his superior officer and in anticipation of such a report being made by the applicant, the Police Constable has lodged the aforesaid false report against the applicant taking undue advantage of his position. The learned counsel for the applicant by drawing attention to the copy of the FIR annexed at page nos.26 and 30 also tried to canvass of there being some interpolation regarding the matters within 3 said copies about same FIR i.e. Annexure E obtained from the Court and Annexure F obtained from the Police. Needless to add that the position as pointed out by the learned counsel is seen regarding the matters stated in the Clause 3-(a) of proforma of FIR. The learned counsel thus contended that having regard to the same and having regard to the reason for which he has been falsely implicated, he deserves to be protected as ultimately the truth about the rival contentions can be determined only after the trial. It is alleged that in the event of the applicant being not protected and ultimately his contentions are found to be true, then he will have to unnecessarily undergo humiliation due to his arrest made. It is urged that granting protection in favour of the applicant is unlikely to cause any prejudice and hardly there are any matters to be investigated requiring his custodial interrogation. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre .vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 691 . The request is vehemently objected by the learned APP by stating that the incident having occurred at a public place regarding public servant on duty, the prayer for pre-arrest bail should not be upheld. The learned APP has also stated that the difference seen in the copies of the FIR submitted had occurred mainly due to the Constable preparing three copies of the FIR for forwarding same to different authorities as required under the law. It is urged that the difference being related to the insignificant matters and not of a nature 4 because of which the prosecution can be said to be gaining anything, no undue importance should be given to such minor matters pointed out from copies of FIR obtained from different places. It is further urged that the applicant was absconding and as such also his prayer deserves to be rejected. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides and considering the case of applicant upon the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant and particularly in paragraphs 122 to 125 of the said decision and taking into consideration the stage at which the investigation rests and the matters required to be investigated in the light of the facts and circumstances of the crime, there appears substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that hardly any case has been spelt out for presence of the applicant would be required for custodial interrogation for completing investigation. Similarly after taking into consideration the medical certificate placed on the record on behalf of the applicant and so also the entries referred to by the prosecution and considering the allegations which are levelled by both the sides upon each other, prima facie it is difficult to accept that the applicant was absconding or even the substance, if any, in the said allegation, can be determined after the evidence regarding relevant aspect is adduced at the trial. Having regard to the same, the prayer in the application deserves to be upheld. Nothing in the order should be construed as 5 this Court having expressed the opinion on merits about the contentions agitated by both the parties. Inform the Investigating Officer of said crime that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the said crime, he shall be forthwith released on furnishing a P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties in like amount and subject to the conditions that applicant (i) shall attend said Police Station in connection with the investigation of the said crime everyday in between 11 and 12 noon for a period of one week and thereafter on every Monday till filing of the charge sheet and so also as and when summoned by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation; (ii) shall not , directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation levelled against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Police Officer; (iii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the application and shall not change the same without permission of the Court; (iv) shall not commit any offence while being on bail granted vide this order. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE halwai