RAJSHREE SURYAKANTA AANDEDKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) THIS is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicants. A complaint has been filed against the present applicants for the offence punishable under sections 500, 501 of the Indian Penal Code, section 3 of the of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and under section 244 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. The said complaint was registered by a Police Officer and the FIR was lodged on 20/2/2009.

(3.) MR. Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the applicant No.1 is an independent Municipal Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation and applicant No.2 is an Ex-Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune. It is submitted that even if the averments in the complaint are accepted at its face value, no offence is made out under the provisions of section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It is submitted that the offence under section 500 is a non-cognizable offence and neither a private complaint has been filed against the present applicants nor any permission has been obtained from the Magistrate for investigation of the said offence. It is, therefore, submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicants in the present case is not necessary. It is submitted that the person who had put up hoardings was granted bail. However, the police now want to arrest both the applicants and, therefore, this application has been filed for anticipatory bail. Both the applicants are politicians. Applicant No.1 is a sitting Corporator and applicant No.2 is an Ex-Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation and they are members of the National Political Party. Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 reads as under:-