PRAVIN PARSHURAM GAVANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for anticipatory bail by a person who claims to have led agitation of locals against establishment of an Atomic Power Project at Jaitapur. The genesis of the incident has been elaborately recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in his order. It appears that people were agitated because one Irfan Yusuf Kazi, who had been injured in an accident with a jeep, had been carried to a Primary Health Centre and the vehicle itself was removed by the police from the spot. The applicant and one Shriram Paranjpe were the leaders of the mob which had gathered and it is alleged that they made speeches inciting people to pull out the driver and beat him up and to destroy the police vehicle because the police had decided to kill people by crushing them under the vehicle as those persons protested against the Atomic Power Project. In the riot which followed, several police personnel were injured. Ultimately, tear gas shells were burst to disburse the mob. The magazine of the pistol of the first informant had gone in the hands of the rioters and eventually four rounds were found on the spot and six rounds were found missing. Since the applicant was named along with Shriram Paranjpe as the persons who had incited the mob, the applicant apprehends arrest. The applicant, therefore, approached the Sessions Court at Ratnagiri for anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application holding that it was not proper to use the discretion when six cartridges and a mobile handset are yet to be recovered and the offence of rioting has been registered. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant cannot be equated to a criminal. The applicant was one of the 250 persons who had gathered at the spot spontaneously to protest against what had happened. There is nothing to show that the applicant had snatched the magazine of the pistol or had carried away the rounds or the mobile handset of the police officer. He submits that there is absolutely no reason why the applicant should be arrested or subjected to custodial interrogation given the fact that the allegations against the applicant are only that of making a speech. He points out that the driver Dattatraya had sustained only a simple abrasion and there was no serious injury to the police personnel in the mob fury.

(2.) THE learned APP contests these propositions. She submits that Dattatraya had in fact sustained contused lacerated wound which was classified as grievous by the Medical Officer. Apart from that Rama Jaitu Dhandga had sustained two grievous and four simple injuries. Both the grievous injuries were on the head in the parietal and occipital region. Therefore, according to her, it is not that the applicant was falsely roped in by imagining that persons had suffered some injuries when actually none had been injured. Therefore, according to her, though 250 persons might have gathered at the spot, but since the applicant was the leader who had incited the mob to attack the police vehicle, the applicant is not entitled to the discretion to be admitted to anticipatory bail.