IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1175 OF 2020

Tejas s/o Suresh Salwe,

Age 25 years, Occupation Student,

R/o Tirupati Park, Madhumalni Apartment,

E-5, N-4, Aurangabad.

….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,

Through P.I. Police Station, Mukundwadi

Dist. Aurangabad.

….Respondent

…..

Advocate for Applicant

: Mr. G. S. Shete.

APP for Respondent-State

: Ms. R. P. Gour.

…..

CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

DATE :

08-01-2021.

ORDER :

1.

Present applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with

Crime No.460 of 2017, registered with Mukundwadi Police Station Dist.

Aurangabad for the ofence punishable under Section 394, 201 read

with 34 of Indian Penal Code, and therefore, he has fled the present

application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. G. S. Shete for applicant and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. R. P. Gour for respondent-State.

2

ABA 1175-2020

3.

It has been vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate for

applicant that the present applicant has been falsely involved. In

fact perusal of the First Information Report would show that it was

lodged against two unknown persons. The charge-sheet has been

fled against one Veer Rekha Sawale and present applicant. Said

Veer is accused No.1 to whom anticipatory bail was already granted

and present applicant is accused No.2 against whom charge-sheet is

fled under Section 299 of Code of Criminal procedure. The present

applicant is aged 25 years and he is a student. He was not

absconding anywhere. He was normally attending his classes.

Informant is a son of political leader and, therefore, the police

intended to show something. The informant has not narrated the

real occurrence of the case but has given a colour of robbery to the

same. Only scufe had taken place. The informant was very much

knowing the applicant and under such circumstance could not have

lodged the report against unknown person. Now when the charge-

sheet is also fled the custodial interrogation of the present applicant

is not required. The present applicant had fled Criminal Bail

Application No.888 of 2017 and it came to be rejected by leaned

Sessions Judge on 20-05-2017. The applicant was never called

thereafter by the Investigating Ofcer. Further after the charge-

sheet was fled when the applicant again approached to learned

3

ABA 1175-2020

Sessions Court with Bail Application No.1780 of 2020, he was

granted ad-interim protection by order dated 12-11-2020. Condition

was imposed that he should remain present before the Investigating

Ofcer on 14^th, 16^th, 18^th and 20^th November 2020 and to remain

present before the Investigating Ofcer as and when called.

Accordingly he has attended the police station and has furnished the

surety. He has cooperated with the investigation, yet his application

has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and

therefore, he had no option but to approach this Court.

4.

Per contra, the learned APP submitted that the present

applicant could not be traced when specifc orders for arrest were

given by the Investigating Ofcer to two police constables. On 10-

07-2017 they had reported that the present applicant is not

traceable. The Investigating Ofcer had no option but to fle the

charge-sheet under Section 299 of CrPC. As per the FIR the gold ring

weighing 10 grams from the fnger of the informant and amount of

Rs.5000/- was forcibly taken away. The said recovery is yet to be

done, and therefore, still investigation can go on under Section 173

(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, custodial interrogation is therefore

required.

5.

At the outset, it is to be noted that the evidence that is fled for

4

ABA 1175-2020

fling the charge-sheet under Section 299 of Code of Criminal

Procedure by the Investigating Ofcer is of only one day and the

e