1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2455 of 2009 (Anil Prakash Patil vs. State ofMaharashtra ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr. L.C. Meshram Adv.for applicant Mr. D.B. Patel, APP for R-State. Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J. Dated : 21st July, 2009 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this application filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is praying for grant of anticipatory bail, in respect of Crime No. 135/2009 reported at Ajni Police Station, Nagpur, for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148 and section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that one Maruti Shamrao Nikore, aged about 42 years, lodged a complaint stating that his son Vicky @ Vikrant Maruti Nikore, aged about 19 years, was kidnapped by five/six persons, at the instance of applicant- Anil Patil. According to the first informant, those 5/6 persons were friends of the applicant- Anil Patil. During the course of investigation, statement of alleged victim Vicky @ Vikrant Nikore, was also recorded indicating that 2 on 5.4.2009 at about 10.30 a.m. the persons riding on three motorcycles (two each on a motorcycle) came at Vasant Nagar, Opposite Gully No.12, by name, Sharad Hazare, armed with iron rod, Dancer Shambharkar, Godbole, Girish Badhane and Vishal Meshram, all alleged associates of applicant-Anil Patil, enquired with Vicky as to whereabouts of Dhanraj Kawre and since Vicky did not disclose the address, he was threatened with dire consequences, assaulted and taken away with a view to kill him. Later, after complaint by father of Vicky at Ajni Police Station, the Police swung into action and arrested two of the accused while four had absconded. It is also alleged that the person whom accused wanted to trace, by name Dhanraj Kawre was released on bail in connection with murder of Pintu Patil (brother of the present applicant). For these reasons, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor objected the grant of anticipatory bail. It is also contended that accused, by name, Godbole is still absconding. 4. Earlier it appears that the applicant had approached the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur, with a prayer for anticipatory bail, which was rejected on 25.6.2009, considering the material showing involvement of the present applicant. The applicant was granted the benefit of interim anticipatory bail. Considering the submission that after lodging the report, the first informant came to his house and had seen his son and thereafter wanted to withdraw the complaint; but the same could not be withdrawn as the offence was already registered. 3 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that the offence of kidnapping in order to commit murder or putting somebody in danger of being murdered is punishable with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to 10 years with fine. 6. At this stage, learned Advocate sought to tender document in the nature of affidavit prepared by him, on which signature of Maruti Shamraoji Nikore has been obtained with a view to arguing before the Court that first informant -Maruti wants to compromise the matter. Maruti Nikore who is present in the Court was questioned about the document which is drafted in English. Although he admits that he had signed it, he stated that he do not know about the contents of the document. The document is taken on record and shall be tagged with the present proceedings. The learned APP contended that the offence punishable u/s 364 IPC is serious and non-compoundable. Be that as it may, the preparation of such a document by obtaining signature of the first informant with ultimate objective to obtain anticipatory bail by the accused/applicant, that too in a serious case is deprecated as it amounts to interference with the progress in the investigation into serious accusations. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the order which was passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Nagpur while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail. Looking to the fact that the applicant has attempted to tamper with the evidence, he did not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail. The interim order 4 granted earlier, is cancelled. Criminal Application is rejected. It is expected that the applicant shall surrender before the appropriate competent remand Court, and shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail on merits of the application. Judge. sahare