1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1668 of 2010 Dulekhan Yusufkhan ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Patur, Dist. Akola Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.I.Jagirdar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.R.Taywade, learned APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 23 rd Novem ber , 2010 . Heard. This is an application filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 141/2010 registered with Police Station, Patur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 427, 436 452, 511 of I.P.C., Sec. 7 of Criminal Law amendment Act and Sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act. The applicant had filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 928/2010 before the Sessions Court, Akola. The learned Sessions Judge, Akola granted ad-interim protection to the applicant on 28/9/2010 and subsequently by order dated 08/10/2010, rejected the anticipatory bail application. Therefore, the applicant has approached this Court for anticipatory bail. Mr. Jagirdar, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the complainant is the Principal of Shahbabu Urdu School/College, Patur. The applicant is the nephew of ex-President namely late Asif Khan Bar Khan, of Asifiya Madarsa, which is situated in front of the said Shahbabu school. A civil dispute in respect of a 2 piece of land, situated in front of said school, is going on between complainant and the applicant and as such the complainant was having grudge in his mind against the applicant. Learned Advocate further submitted that the report lodged against the applicant is an outcome of the enmity between them. There is no material against the applicant to connect him with the present crime and only on suspicion he is involved in the said crime. The report lodged against the applicant is false and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Mrs. Taywade, learned APP for the State has filed reply and opposed the application. Learned APP has placed the case diary before the court for perusal. Perusal of the record shows that the report lodged on 20/9/2010 specifically states that the applicant was the member of the mob/unlawful assembly. All of them entered the school and damaged the school furniture as well as the furniture of the cabin of the Principal and caused damage to the school bus. The teachers were also subjected to physical assault. The material collected by the investigating agency includes the photographs of the spot, which clearly show damage to the school property. Learned APP submitted that the offences are serious in the backdrop that the school property including school bus are damaged and the parents and the students are under threat and pressure. Learned APP further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the applicant is absolutely necessary. She also invited my attention to the statements of the witnesses, recorded by the investigating agency wherein the name of the applicant and role played by him is mentioned. She also expressed an apprehension that the other co- accused are absconding and if the applicant is released on bail, he will not be available for investigation. She, therefore, prayed for rejection 3 of the application. Learned Advocate for the applicant has invited my attention to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Gajanand Agrawal ..vs.. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2007 All M.R.(Cri.) 1721 S.C. in which the Apex Court has observed thus - “Bail – Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case – To be avoided by courts passing orders on bail applications – However, Court should be satisfied with prima facie case.” There cannot be any dispute or second opinion on the principle laid down by the Apex Court. The view expressed by the Apex Court is that though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. As stated above, in the present case, there is sufficient material available against the applicant to connect the applicant with the said crime and in view of that material, prima facie case is against the applicant. As such the judgment replied upon by the applicant is not applicable in the present case. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant and application deserves to be rejected. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale