1 Criminal Application No.894 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.894 OF 2011 Satish Nagnath Shinde ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.S. Udas, Advocate for applicant Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 assisted by Shri N.B. Ghute, Advocate for original complainant Shri N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 17th March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. The accused/ applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.I-42/2011, registered at Karjat Police Station, District Ahmednagar for an offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 395, 379, 511, 337, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The complainant, allegedly a Press Reporter, with several other persons was videographing events of lifting sand from river bed. Noticing depicting such events, group of 12 persons 2 Criminal Application No.894 of 2011 barged at him, assaulted him. One of them had even pointed a fire arm. The accused/ applicant was one of the 12 persons in the unlawful assembly. The video cameras of the complainant and his associates, three in number, were snatched and allegedly a dacoity was committed. 3. Learned counsel for the accused/ applicant submits, it was one Shivaji Shinde, instrumental in the matter, he called reporters and a false subsequent case is registered after F.I.R. vide Crime No.21/2011 of Chetan Mahadeo, employee. Counsel submits, since the F.I.R. does not disclose name of the accused/ applicant, custodial interrogation is not imperative. 4. On perusal of investigation papers, at least 8 independent persons, villagers of Nagalwadi, in unison, have referred the applicant as one of the 12 persons, he was known to those persons and attributed specific role of abusing, pelting stones, inflicting fists and kicks, and taking away the above referred three cameras. Learned A.P.P. informs, the video cameras are yet to be recovered. 5. The interim protection showered upon the applicant by order dated 7.3.2011 could not be coin its result in accelerating 3 Criminal Application No.894 of 2011 investigation as the accused/ applicant did not cooperate the investigator to point out where could be the cameras or what was his role in the matter. 6. Taking these aspects into consideration, the F.I.R. No. 21/2011 being of 14.2.2011 while the events of this case having taken place on 13.2.2011, it hardly matters that the F.I.R. recorded subsequently wanted to be used as sabotage. Taking these aspects, no extension of pre-arrest bail. Application lacks merits, dismissed. Interim protection vacated. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri894.11