1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 613 OF 2010 Pramod Shantaram Jadhar .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with Mr. Niteen V. Pradhan, Ms. S.D. Khot and Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for the applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 614 OF 2010 Gurunath Ramchandra Warak .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Udeshi i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste with Mr. S.N. Gawade for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 2 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By these two applications, the applicants, who have been made co-accused in connection with C.R. No. 133 of 2009 registered at Kankavli Police Station, District Sindhudurg, seek pre- arrest bail. 3. On 17th November 2009, Smt. Dwarka Bhagwan Kadam (for short “the complainant”) lodged an F.I.R. alleging therein that her son Rajesh @ Pappu Bhagwan Kadam (hereinafter referred to as “Pappu”) was missing. In the complaint, she stated that Pappu had gone along with Sunny Kuttapan and Raju Wadekar (hereinafter referred to as “accused nos.1 and 4) for the purpose of election campaigning to Kasarde Kankavli. She further stated that the accused nos.1 and 4 had called Pappu under the guise of election campaigning and on account of previous quarrel had killed him. Investigation was carried out, but no material has been found that Pappu has in fact been killed. In any event, his dead body is not found. Several persons were arrested and remand applications for police custody were filed before the Magistrate. In all the remand applications, it was alleged that one Vikramjeet Tilakdhari Yadav 3 @ Sonu Yadav (accused no.3) had killed Pappu and accused nos.1 and 4 to 8 had disposed of the body of Pappu by throwing it in a flowing river. On 16th January 2010, one Vinod Jamnaprasad Varma, who was not then in police custody, suo muto appeared before the learned Magistrate and expressed his desire to make a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”). He was first taken into police custody and then taken into Magisterial custody and his statement u/s 164 of Cr. P.C. was recorded on 22nd January 2010. He inter alia stated that Mr. Pramod Jathar (the applicant in Criminal Application No. 613 of 2010), who was contesting an election to the Legislative Assembly, on being aware of the death of Pappu was afraid that a distorted news item may appear affecting his chances in the election and therefore he directed that the dead body of Pappu be disposed of. He further stated that Mr. Jathar provided money for arranging a Qualis motor vehicle for disposing of the dead body of Pappu. Mr. Gurunath Warak (the applicant in Criminal Application No.614 of 2010) is stated to be the driver of Mr. Jathar and is implicated as such. It is however not the case that Mr. Warak was the driver of Qualis motor vehicle in which the dead body is alleged to have been carried away. 4 4. On my query as to which the offence is alleged to have been committed by Mr. Jathar and Mr. Warak, the present applicants, learned A.P.P. on instructions of Mr. Vijay M. Parkale, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is present in Court, submitted that the only evidence available against the applicants was of commission of offences punishable under sections 201 and 212 of the I.P.C. There is no other material regarding their involvement in causing death or abduction of Pappu. 5. The offences punishable under sections 201 and 212 of the I.P.C. are bailable. As such the present applications for anticipatory bail are not maintainable. If the applicants are arrested for the offence under sections 201 and 212 of the I.P.C., they are entitled to bail as of right. 6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the investigation is still in progress and in the event it is discovered that the applicants have committed any non-bailable offence, they can be arrested. If the State desires to arrest any of the applicants for any non-bailable offence in connection with C.R. No.133 of 2009 of Kankavali Police 5 Station, the police shall give at least 48 hours notice to the them, where, however, the courts are closed for 2 successive days following the notice, the notice will be of 72 hours. 7. With this direction, both the applications are disposed of as not maintainable. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)