1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1316 of 2010 Natthu v. State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R.L. Khapre, Adv for applicant Mr S. Bhagde, APP for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 3rd September 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State. Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 491/08 registered with Police Station, Washim for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on Sayareddi Sayana & ors v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 BCI 43 in which this Court after making reference to Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharoti reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 has considered the meaning of the term “custody” as physical control or at least physical presence of the accused in Court coupled with submission to the jurisdiction and orders of the Court. Applicant is present in the Court and learned counsel for the applicant identifies him. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that wife of the applicant is Sarpanch of village Umra Kapse, District Washim 2 and in her capacity as Sarpanch she had issued notices for removal of encroachments. One such notice was issued to the wife of complainant who lodged complaint making wild accusation under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant who repented for lodging false complaint, has sworn in an affidavit before the Executing Magistrate and Tahsildar, Washim to clarify that no such incident had occurred in his presence. The complainant in clear terms has stated on oath that he committed mistake without any evil intention and he was not present when the alleged incident had occurred. According to learned counsel for the applicant, statement of Babarao has also been recorded by police during the course of investigation. This statement is not disputed by learned APP who, however, objected grant of anticipatory bail. 3. In these circumstances, reading the contents of affidavit, one may have reason to believe that the accusation was baseless and may be ill- motivated to implicate political opponent in a crime. It is for the investigating agency to investigate and to come to decide as to whether charge-sheet can be lodged on the basis of statements recorded by it during the course of investigation. For all these reasons, following order is passed. 4. In the event of his arrest in Crime No. 491/08 registered with Police Station, Washim for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall attend to 3 Investigating Officer as and when required. He will not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner. He shall leave his fixed address with telephone/cellphone number (if any) to the Investigating Officer and shall communicate change therein, if any, in future. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Judge. hsj