1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1046 OF 2009 1 Mrs Rajshree Suryakanta Aandedkar 2 Mr. Udaykanta Ranoji Aandekar ..... Applicants. V/s State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b Ms. Sharmila Kaushik for the applicants. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 4th March, 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicants. A complaint has been filed against the present applicants for the offence punishable under sections 500, 501 of the Indian Penal Code, section 3 of the of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and under section 244 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. The said complaint was registered by a Police Officer and the FIR was lodged on 20/2/2009. 2 3. Brief facts are as under:- 4. Public Hoardings were put up by Suryakant @ Bandu Ranoji Aandekar @ Bandu Ranoji Aandekar. The said hoardings were put up in different areas of Pune. In the said hoardings, Police Officer “T” was condemned, stating that he had filed false cases against the people and Senior Police Officer “D” was applauded since he had registered genuine cases. In the complaint, it was alleged that by virtue of the said hoardings, the applicants had defamed all Police Officers and had committed mischief within the meaning of section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922. 5. Mr. Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the applicant No.1 is an independent Municipal Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation and applicant No.2 is an Ex-Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune. It is submitted that even if the averments in the complaint are accepted at its face value, no offence is made out under the provisions of section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It is submitted that the offence under section 500 is a non- cognizable offence and neither a private complaint has been filed against the present applicants nor any permission has been obtained from the Magistrate for investigation of the said offence. It is, therefore, submitted that custodial 3 interrogation of the applicants in the present case is not necessary. It is submitted that the person who had put up hoardings was granted bail. However, the police now want to arrest both the applicants and, therefore, this application has been filed for anticipatory bail. Both the applicants are politicians. Applicant No.1 is a sitting Corporator and applicant No.2 is an Ex-Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation and they are members of the National Political Party. Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 reads as under:- “ 3. Mischief causing damage to public property-(1) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. (2) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being- (a) any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy; (b) any oil installations ; (c) any sewage works ; (d) any mine or factory ; 4 (e) any means of public transportation or of tele-communications, any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine. Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.” Section 2(a) of the said Act states that the word “mischief” shall have the same meaning as in section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:- “ 425. Mischief.- Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”. 5 Explanation 1 - It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not. Explanation 2. - Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly.” 6. By putting up hoardings and expressing an opinion, in my view, by itself would not cause mischief within the meaning of section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. In any event, contents of the said hoardings, in my view, would not amount to mischief within the meaning of the said Act. In the present case, no damage has been caused to the public property. No such allegation is made in the said complaint. Similarly, section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 speaks about disaffection against members of the police force. Putting up of hoardings and more particularly hoardings in the present case, prima facie, does not appear to attract the provisions of section 3 of the said Act. Looked at from any 6 angle, in my view, applicants by putting up the said hoardings, have not committed, prima facie, any cognizable offence. Even otherwise, question of custodial interrogation in such case would not arise. Under these circumstances, in my view, prima facie case is made out by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Applicants shall, in the event of their arrest in connection with C.R. No. 3046 of 2009 registered at Samartha Police Station, District Pune for the offence punishable under sections 500, 501 of the Indian Penal Code, section 3 of the of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and under section 244 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, be released on bail in the sum of Rs 10,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicants shall co-operate with the police. Applicants shall report to the concerned Police Station as and when called. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)