SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Bom) 527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.
Vijay - Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 220 of 2018
Decided On : 12-04-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate instructed by Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.B. Joshi, A.P.P.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 438 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act - Section 3 - Mines Act, 1952 - Section 21 - Superintendent of Police - FIR - Additional Superintendent of Police It Division District - Initially he was posted as in charge of Police Station District as a part of training during probation- complainant resident of was dealing with business of supply of building material- A truck bearing registration belonging to complainant loaded with sand was intercepted by police near old Toll Naka of He was called in Police Station He was produced before applicant who was in charge of Police Station- A crime was registered against him and truck driver for offences punishable with Indian Penal Code and also Section Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Since complainant was not keeping good health he was allowed to go at home and police personnel Sunil with instructions to attend Court driver of truck was detained in Police Station itself –Held, Applicant is a probationary Officer- It seems that at beginning of his career itself he prima facie indulged in corrupt practices- If that be so one can imagine with what intention applicant joined such a public service- A person of such character prima facie would not be entitled to get extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail which is basically meant for innocent persons save them from humiliation and harassment caused due to unnecessary arrest and detention- In circumstances application is liable be rejected relief of pre-arrest bail was not granted in favour applicant- Since learned pressed for his presence as per provisions of Section Code of Criminal Procedure he was directed to remain present before Court on date of final hearing- However on request of learned Senior Counsel for applicant a direction was given to Investigating Officer that he shall not take coercive action against applicant till final hearing of application- It was further clarified that applicant would not be entitled to claim any equity on basis of this direction- In circumstances contention of applicant that he appeared before Investigating Officer at his own gave his voice sample and offered to co-operate for further investigation would not to his benefit to seek relief of pre-arrest bail – Order accordingly

JUDGMENT :

1. The applicant has sought the relief of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 15 of 2018, registered in Police Station, Ardhapur, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short).

2. The applicant is the Additional Superintendent of Police, It wara Division, Nanded, District Nanded. Initially, he was posted as incharge of Police Station, Tiwasa, District Amrawati, as a part of training during probation. The complainant namely Harihar Mahadeo Puri, resident of Amrawati, was dealing with the business of supply of building material. A truck bearing registration No. MH-27/X-8090, belonging to the complainant, loaded with sand, was intercepted by the police near old Toll Naka of Tiwasa on 14th May, 2017. He was called in the Police Station on 15th May, 2017 at about 5.00 p.m. He was produced before the applicant, who was incharge of the Police Station. A crime was registered against him and the truck driver for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 186 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 21 of the Mines Act, 1952. Since the complainant was not keeping good health, he was allowed to go at home at about 11.00 p.m. by A.P.I. Kamble and police personnel Sunil Udakhe with the instructions to attend the Court at Tiwasa on 26th May, 2017 at 11.00 a.m. The driver of the truck was detained in the Police Station itself. When the complainant was in Saikrupa Dhaba, Mozri at about 12.30 in the night, it is alleged that, the applicant came there and asked him, whether he had run away from the Police Station since he was arrested. The complainant informed the applicant as to how he was allowed to leave the Police Station, whereon the applicant asked one of his staff members to slap the complainant and make him to sit down. The applicant further called the motor-vehicle of the Police Station and took the complainant to the Police Station. The applicant threatened him with the say that he had committed a grave offence by running away from the Police Station and he would not be able to get bail for about three months. The applicant then made the complainant to sit in his own car and took him to the bridge of river Wardha. On the way, he asked the complainant as to how-much amount was paid by him to A.P.I. Kamble and Sunil Udakhe. The complainant told the applicant that he had not paid any amount to them. Thereafter, the applicant asked the complainant about his occupation and told him that he would save the complainant, but asked as to how-much amount would be paid. The complainant offered Rs. 50,000/-, whereon the applicant ironically questioned him as to whether the complainant was holding him as a Police Station Officer (Thanedar). The applicant demanded Rs. 10,00,000/-. When the applicant expressed his difficulties and requested the applicant to reduce that demand, the applicant asked the complainant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- and further warned that otherwise, he would show the complainant the power of an I.P.S. Officer. The applicant assured the complainant that he would not either arrest the complainant and help him in getting his truck released and filing of the charge-sheet. Because of the fear of the applicant, the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-. Since the complainant was feeling uneasy because of all those events, the applicant took him to the hospital at Tiwasa for medical examination. After examining the complainant, the Doctor advised the police to take the complainant to Irwin Hospital at Amrawati. However, he was taken to the Police Station and thereafter, was reached to his dwelling house at Amrawati.

3. It is alleged that the applicant received the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant on 5th June, 2017. Thereafter, the applicant repeatedly demanded the balance amount of Rs. 2,00






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top