1 wp2820.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2820 OF 2010 Sanjay Shivajirao Somvanshi ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents Mr. K.S.Patil, advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.S.Saste, APP for State. Ms. Varsha Palav, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- JANUARY 31, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP. 2. By this Petition, it is prayed that the FIR registered against the Petitioner for offence including under the provision of Atrocities Act be quashed. Twofold argument is made before us. In the first place, it is contended that no offence whatsoever is made out from the FIR, as registered. It is contended that in any case, in the statement made before the police on the basis of which the FIR has been registered almost three months after the date of incident, it is amply clear 2 wp2820.10 that the allegation made therein for the first time is out of vengeance. This argument is taken forward on the basis of the first statement of the complainant registered soon after the incident dated 23rd May, 2010, in which no mention about utterances now attributed to the Petitioner allegedly made on 10th May, 2010 in his office are found. Besides, in the statement dated 23rd May, 2010 with regard to the incident of 10th May, 2010, no mention has been made that two persons standing outside the door rushed in the office to rescue the complainant. According to the Petitioner, going by the statement of 23rd May, 2010 being in earlier point of time, no offence is made out with regard to the incident of 10th May, 2010. In the same statement with regard to the incident of 11th May, 2010 the complainant has admitted that only petitioner and the complainant were present in the chamber when the incident happened. In view thereof, it is submitted that the utterances attributed to the Petitioner even if accepted as it is for the sake of argument will not take the matter any further because the same were not made in public view. These are the broad arguments canvassed before us in the present petition on behalf of the Petitioner. 3. Learned APP on the other hand, relies on the statement of the two persons, who were present at the relevant time when the incident of 10th May, 2010 unfolded. It is stated that the said two persons have supported the plea of the 3 wp2820.10 complainant with regard to the offending statements. 4. In deference to the observations made by the Court, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner will avail of appropriate remedy after the chargesheet is filed by the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation. In that case, all questions raised by the Petitioner in the present petition are kept open to be agitated in the said proceedings. He however, submits that atleast one limited indulgence be shown to the Petitioner, namely, giving time to appear before the court and apply for bail in the lower court in the first instance. Insofar as this request is concerned, learned APP submits that State will have no serious objection thereto if the bail application or any other proceedings resorted to by the Petitioner, as that will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, we allow the Petitioner to withdraw this Petition with liberty to pursue his remedy before the concerned court, including for discharge at the appropriate stage or for that matter to apply for bail, as may be advised. We give time to petitioner to appear before Special Court, Pune on or before 14th February, 2011. It will be open to the Petitioner to surrender before the Court and contemporaneously move application for bail. If the Petitioner 4 wp2820.10 surrenders in morning session of the Court and applies for bail, we hope and trust that the trial Court would consider the bail application and dispose of the same expeditiously and preferably on the same day. That may be possible only if the Petitioner were to give advance notice to the concerned Public Prosecutor as well as Investigating Officer regarding proposed application for bail, so that the Public Prosecutor would be ready with the necessary instructions and the original record can also be made available by the Investigating Officer before the court on that date. 6. Petition disposed of on the above terms. 7. Interim protection given to the Petitioner shall continue till 14th February, 2011 or till the date of surrender before the Court, whichever is earlier. 8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)