Bombay High Court
Imran Abdul Wahab Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 November, 2020
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
:1: 35-ABA-ST-5099-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5099 OF
2020
Imran Abdul Wahab Khan .... Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ....Respondent
______
Mr. Vijay R. Sahetia, for applicant.
Mr. S.H.Yadav, APP for State/Respondent.
______
CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE :27th November,2020 P.C. :
1. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No.292/2020 registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station on 2/10/2020 under sections 353, 332, 506(2) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. FIR is lodged by PSI Rajput. He had stated in FIR that at about 12.15p.m. on 2/10/2020, they were on bandobast duty. There was trafc jam. Police Constable Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane P. Deshmane Date: 1 of 4 2020.11.28 YS Patil 16:54:00 +0530 :2: 35-ABA-ST-5099-2020 Sonawane was taking action against illegally parked vehicles.
One Bullet motorcycle was parked illegally obstructing the trafc. P.C. Sonawane questioned the bullet rider. He abused the police and threatened them. At the same time one Swift car bearing No.MH-03-AM-3025 came there. The driver abused the police and threatened to kill them. He got down from the car and went aggressively towards police to assault them. At the same time, a person by name Vasim Khan from that locality came there, abused police, pushed one of the police constables as well as the frst informant. He picked up a stone and tried to assault police ofcer Chavan. On these allegations FIR is lodged. FIR mentions name of swift car owner as Natwarlal Unadkat. However, subsequently it was found that car was driven by present applicant.
3. Heard Mr. Vijay Sahetia, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. S.H. Yadav, learned APP for State.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the applicant was not present at the spot. His custodial interrogation is not necessary. Remand report shows that the applicant had allegedly tried to extract money from rickshaw 2 of 4 :3: 35-ABA-ST-5099-2020 drivers which is not mentioned in the FIR. Applicant is sought to be arrested by police by implicating him in a false case.
5. The learned APP on the other hand submitted that incident has taken place. Statement of original owner of swift car was recorded. He has stated that car was sold to the present applicant in the year 2018 itself. He submitted that ofence is serious and applicant does not deserve protection of anticipatory bail. He submitted that applicant has two antecedents under sec. 324 and 392 of Indian Penal Code. He was also asked to execute bond under section 107 of Cr. P.C.
6. I have considered these submissions. When police ofcers were performing their duties, they were pushed,threatened and abused. These incidents cannot be tolerated. If the ofenders start threatening the police, it would be difcult to maintain law and order. The allegations in the FIR coupled with supplementary statement and statement of original car owner makes it clear that applicant himself was driving the car. He had abused and threatened the police ofcer for taking action against him. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to grant protection of 3 of 4 :4: 35-ABA-ST-5099-2020 anticipatory bail to the present applicant. The application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 4 of 4