1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.786 OF 2010 Nilesh Subhash Patil, Age-30 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar, APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Mr.P.P.Chavan, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 26/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail, after his attempts to release on bail were became futile before the Court of Sessions. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, followed by the submissions of learned APP. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. The said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Nilesh Bharat Patil on 30/11/2009 on the allegations that on 2 05/11/2009, when he was proceeding on his motor bike, the applicant and his friends followed him and his motor bike was forcibly stopped on the Shahada Jainagar road, where the he was forcibly alighted from the motor bike, and forced to lie on the ground and administered poison to him. It appears from the papers of investigation that one Jitendra Arjun Patil found complainant lying in un-conscious condition on the public road and his motor bike was also found lying by the side of road. He admitted complainant Nilesh in the hospital at Shahad at around 5.30 p.m. on the same day. The complainant regain consciousness on 08/11/2009, but on 30/11/2009, he became fully conscious and at that time make a disclosure statement that the applicant and his friend administered poison to him and on that basis, complaint came to be registered. 4. It appears from the record made available to this Court that after complainant was admitted in the hospital, the doctors, who are giving medical treatment to the complainant, asked the said Jitendra to visit the spot again and to find out whether he can locate any incriminating article at the spot. According to Jitendra, he located one plastic empty bottle of poison, which he brought back to the hospital, which was remain thereafter in the hospital and was taken charge under the seizure panchnama, after offence came to be registered against the applicant. If further appears that the present applicant has applied for anticipatory bail earlier, and for certain period, he was released on anticipatory bail with a rider to give attendance to the police station for interrogation. The fact remains 3 that so far as the allegations against applicant are concerned, are based on the statement of complainant alone. No court will say, discard the statement of complainant at this juncture or till he face the cross examination, but when the offence was registered, the name of applicant was disclosed. On 29/12/2009, the applicant was released on anticipatory bail. Even though he was available for interrogation, the nexus to be established to connect the applicant with this offence is the bottle which was collected from the spot of the poisonous substance, no interrogation is made from which shop, the applicant has purchased the bottle of poison. It appears that no investigation is carried out as to from where the bottle was purchased and from whom the bottle was sold. Why it was not done, only the better reasons are known to the investigation officer. It appears that after the applicant surrendered and his application for regular bail rejected, much hue and cry was made that his custodial interrogation is require to find out from where the bottle was purchased containing poisonous substance. As against this, papers of investigation are totally silent on the point that during the interrogation, the applicant has not co-operated the investigation agency. In absence of any such record coming before the Court about non co-operation of applicant during the period, he was released on anticipatory bail with rider to give attendance to the police station concerned for interrogation, it appears that instead of carrying out real investigation, the complainant is interested to see the applicant behind bars. In the premise, this is a fit case as even though there is an ample opportunity with investigation agency, and 4 the bottle which was found on the spot was available for interrogation, but no proper investigation is carried. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant to given attendance to police station concerned once a week on every Friday, in between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet and to co-operative the investigation agency. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.786-10