Bombay High Court
Faisal Mushtaque Shiralkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 January, 2020
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
rpa 1/4 910-aba-237-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2020
Faisal Mushtaque Shiralkar .. Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
......
Mr.Sunny A. Waskar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.S.H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr.Amarsinh Patil, API Chiplun Police Station, District-Ratnagiri.
......
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : JANUARY 29, 2020.
P.C. :
This is an application for anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No.337 of 2019, registered with Chiplun
Police Station, District-Ratnagiri, for the ofences punishable
under Sections 353, 323 and 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code ("IPC", for short). First Information Report ("FIR", for short)
was lodged on 26th December, 2019.
2 The case of the complainant is that information was
received about unauthorized excavating of sand carried out by
::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2020 21:09:10 :::
rpa 2/4 910-aba-237-2020.doc
some persons. The complainant and others proceeded to the
place of incident. While on the way, they saw four dumpers
coming from their opposite direction. On noticing the vehicle of
the complainant, the driver of the said dumpers took the dumpers
to the bushes and tried to hide them. The raiding party went to
the said place. While examining the said dumpers, they noticed
that three dumpers were carrying sand and one dumper was
empty. While examining the vehicles, the applicant and co-
accused came to the spot of incident. The complainant received a
call from Tahasildar and while he was responding the phone call,
the co-accused snatched the phone from his hand and returned
same after some time to the complainant. The applicant and the
co-accused then told the drivers of the dumpers to take away the
said vehicles without permission of the complainant. The drivers
tried to move the vehicles. Complainant tried to stop the vehicles,
however, the vehicles were taken away. The co-accused abused
the complainant and manhandled him. In pursuant to that the
FIR was lodged.
3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
case is false. Applicant cannot be attributed the role of having
committed an ofence under Section 353 IPC. The role of
::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2020 21:09:10 :::
rpa 3/4 910-aba-237-2020.doc
obstructing public servant is attributed to the co-accused.
Applicant was at the most present at the place of incident when
those three dumpers were taken away by the accused. The case is
false. There were no any other dumper. Only one dumper was
found, which was empty. Hence, custodial interrogation of the
applicant is not necessary.
4 Learned APP submitted that the applicant has been
attributed specifc overtact in the FIR. There is criminal
antecedent against the applicant. One case is registered against
the applicant.
5 It is further submitted that the applicant was fned on
four occasion for carrying the sand. Learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that case which was registered against the
applicant has resulted into acquittal. The other cases are non-
cognizable.
6 On perusal of FIR, it can be seen that the applicant
and the co-accused came together. Both of them told the drivers
to take away dumpers. According to prosecution, the said
dumpers were flled up with sand. On reading the FIR and the
::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2020 21:09:10 :::
rpa 4/4 910-aba-237-2020.doc
material on record, it cannot be said that the applicant is not
liable for the ofence under Section 353 of IPC. Learned APP had
also pointed out the statements of witnesses, which shows the
involvement of the applicant in the crime. According to the
learned counsel for the applicant the numbers of the dumpers
were not mentioned which shows that it is a false case. Going
through the material it can be seen that the applicant was
present alongwith the co-accused. He was also instrumental in
instructing the drivers to take away the dumpers. prima facie
involvement of the applicant is disclosed. No case for grant of
anticipatory bail is made out.
7 Hence I pass the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.237 of 2020, stands rejected and disposed of.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2020 21:09:10 :::