1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2852/2009 ((1) Sharif Ahmad Mushtak Ahmed Siddiqui and two others vs State of Maharashtra ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr Anil S.Mardikar Adv.for applicant Mr. D P Thakare APP for Respondent-State C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 21st August, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Interim anticipatory bail was granted in this case on 04.08.2009 with some observations on merits of the case, prima facie appearing from averments in the FIR. Thereafter, it appears that the Investigating Officer made a grievance that the applicants are not abiding by conditions of interim anticipatory bail and thereby are frustrating the investigation. It further appears that an additional affidavit was filed by the applicant no.1- Sharif Ahmed, stating that during the period between 8.8.2009 and 17.8.2009 there was no communication from the Investigating Officer calling any of the applicants for the purpose of interrogation. It is also contended that when the applicants went to the Police Station, the Investigating Officer or the House Station Officer were not present in the Police Station. 3. While opposing the anticipatory bail, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that subsequently some statements of witnesses have been recorded regarding the incident on 1.7.2009. Learned APP, therefore, contended that the case of the prosecution against the applicants is that they admitted to have committed murder of Shriniwas. However, considering the FIR dated 30.6.2009 which is substratum of the case, it was pointed out that even section 324 has been converted into section 307 in the pro forma ; while in respect of weapon which was mentioned as stick 2 (Kathi), the words iron rod have been substituted to implicate the applicants in a more serious accusations, punishable under sections 307 read with section 34 of the IPC, instead of section 324 read with sec.34 IPC. Be that as it may; the person responsible for authoring the FIR will have to explain the discrepancies pointed out during the course of the trial. But suspicion do arise in the mind about seriousness of the accusations ; while prima facie possibility of concoction in such a case cannot be ruled out. For the present the applicants cannot be denied the benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, anticipatory bail as granted on 4.8.2009 is confirmed, subject to same conditions. Application is disposed of. JUDGE. sahare