The present application is filed seeking to release the applicant on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with the complaint being C.R.No.I-29 of 2011 registered with Lodhika Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 447, 200, 385, 406, 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC.
Heard learned Counsel, Mr.Ashish M.Dagli for the applicant, Ms.Krina Calla, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and learned counsel, Mr.Tajas M.Barot for the original complainant.
It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Dagli that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely involved in the incident. According to him, the present complaint is an after-thought as though the offence took place on 15-5-2008, complaint was filed much later on 15-4-2011. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and his name has been disclosed as an absconding accused in the charge sheet filed against other other accused. Since, he is apprehending his arresting, it is submitted that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required as the entire case is depending on documentary evidence which has already been collected by the investigating agency. It is also submitted that co-accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court and hence, it is requested that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
Mrs.Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is assisted by learned counsel, Mr.Tejas Barot for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the present application and contended that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and hence, he should not be released on anticipatory bail.
This Court has gone through the complaint together with police papers and other materials available on record.
It appears from the police papers that present applicant is the main person behind the entire transaction. Further, he has not been available for interrogation with the investigating agency and hence, he has been shown as an absconding absconding in the charge sheet filed against other accused. There is sufficient prima facie materials against the applicant in the alleged offence and hence, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail. Apart from this, there are other 37 offences of loot, riot, murder, cheating, etc. registered against the applicant with different Police Stations. Therefore, considering the past record of the applicant also, this Court would not exercise its discretion in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
In view of the above, this application is rejected. Rule is discharged.
The observations made by this Court in this order being made for the purpose of deciding this application may not prejudice the parties in trial.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top