1 Cri.A.4529.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4529 OF 2011 Ganpat Govind Dhavale, R/o at present working as Police Sub-Inspector at Police Station,Basamba, Tq. and District Hingoli. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.S.Deshmukh,Advocate for Applicant. Shri.B.J.Sonwane,A.P.P. for Respondent-State. .... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 09.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. One person by name Shivdas Mahadeorao Barse, lodged a complaint at Basmba Police Station, Tq. and District Hingoli, in regard to the incident, namely, death of his daughter Jyoti, who was married to one Mr. Vikas. In connection with said FIR present applicant had registered a Crime, and 2 Cri.A.4529.11 Mr. Vikas, husband of said Jyoti was arrested. Similarly, two persons by name Eknath and Umesh were also arrested. 3. Mr. U.D.Molwane, concerned Officer of the Anti Corruption Department had filed the complaint against the present applicant alleging that present applicant had demanded money from Mr. Bargal for carrying out investigation in proper manner. The said complaint came to be filed with Anti Corruption Department and two panchas were deputed along with complainant to verify the fact of demand of bribe to carry out investigation in better and proper manner. The persons visited the office of the present applicant. In the text of the FIR the talk between applicant and said person alleged to have taken place is mentioned. Thereafter, a trap was arranged on 03.08.2011. However, at the relevant time, the events took place in such manner that the present applicant absented himself from the place where monies were alleged to be given to him by Mr.Bargal, which 3 Cri.A.4529.11 will mean trap failed. Thereafter, present FIR has been filed by Mr. Udhav Molwane, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Nanded. 4. In the course of hearing of this anticipatory bail application, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that this FIR is filed solely to falsely implicate the present applicant alleging that the present applicant failed to carryout investigation in the best possible manner and to the best of his ability, though he had arrested husband of Jyoti and two persons. Learned advocate Mr. Deshmukh submitted that custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not required for the purpose of investigation of this crime where it is alleged that the present applicant has committed the offence under section 7 of the Anti Corruption Act. 5. In reply to the argument advanced by Mr. 4 Cri.A.4529.11 Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, Mr. Sonwane, learned APP tried to place before this Court certain factual aspects which according to him do go to show that investigation was not carried out in a proper manner. According to Mr. Sonwane, learned APP various loopholes were kept in the investigation clearly to support the accused. According to learned APP only on receipt of bribe amount the present applicant would have seen that investigation is carried out in a proper manner. 6. After having seen the Police papers and in particular FIR, it is apparent that the crux of the allegations against the present applicant is talk, which had taken place between Mr. Bargal and the present applicant. In my view, even if, the talk mentioned in the text of FIR is accepted as it is and even if it is treated that prima facie case under section 7 of the Provisions of Anti Corruption Act is made out looking to the event which had taken place, I am inclined to observe 5 Cri.A.4529.11 that custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not required. If it is case of the State that the present applicant has not carried out investigation in proper manner and has left loopholes it will be open for State to approach Superior Officer of the applicant and make grievance so that he shall investigate into the said complaint. It is pertinent to note that in a case which came to be registered by the present applicant as Crime No. 58 of 2011, wherein said Jyoti is said to have been murdered, the concerned Police Sub-Inspector has already filed charge- sheet. This will mean that investigation agency was fully satisfied with whatever investigation, which has been carried out. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Hence, following order is passed. (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No. 3007 of 2011 registered with Basamba Police 6 Cri.A.4529.11 Station Tq. and District Hingoli, under section 7 of the Anti Corruption Act, 1988 he be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the like amount. The applicant shall execute P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand). (ii) The applicant shall report the concerned Investigation Officer, Police Station, Basmba, firstly on 18.12.2011 between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p. m. and thereafter as and when called for. Sd/- [ R.Y.GANOO, J. ] MTK 7 Cri.A.4529.11