SHASHIKANT BABURAO ITADKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Mundargi for petitioner and Mr. Thakur, APP for State at length. The Petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest by Kapurbavdi Police Station in Dist. Thane in C.R. No.I-253/07 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) THE incident is of 2nd November 1997 when certain hirelings had gone to the residence of the complainant asking him to vacate the flat in his occupation. The complainant as well as his family members were present. Two shots were fired from the revolver, one in the air and one pointed at the complainant which he could escape by lowering his head immediately and therefore the said bullet struck the wall of the house. Immediately complaint was lodged with the Police. In the said complaint it is also mentioned he is occupying the flat belonging to the petitioner and there is no dispute on that aspect. The complaint also mentioned that the notice was sent through his Advocate by complainant on 16/8/97 to the petitioner about the threats which were being held out to him in case he did not vacate the flat in his occupation. The copy of the said notice was also sent to the Commissioner of Police, Thane which copy bears the acknowledgment dated 16-8-97. Pursuant to the said complaint Police naturally wanted to interrogate the petitioner who was never available to the police for the said purpose. The petitioner in the mean time filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Thane which came to be rejected on 11-11-97. A copy of the said order is annexed as Exhibit 'C' to this application.

(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the custodial interrogation would be necessary. The case narrated in the FIR as well as the previous legal notice addressed to the petitioner on behalf of the complainant makes out a case for investigation against the petitioner and hence this application for anticipatory bail cannot be allowed. The application is, therefore, rejected.