Posted On by &filed under Bombay High Court, High Court.


Bombay High Court
Mr. Mohsin Haider vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001) 2 BOMLR 848
Author: V Sahai.
Bench: V Sahai


JUDGMENT

Vishnu Sahai. J.

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 213/2000 u/ss. 323, 324, 342. 363. 387 r/w section 34 of the I.P.C. of D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.

2. The allegations in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 27.4.2000 at 10.00 p.m. at D.N. Nagar Police Station by Sayyed Asif Ziauddin Sayyed in brief are as under : –

Since the last four years, the informant was affiliated to the Samajwadi Party as a party worker and did social work with Mohsin Haidar (the petitioner) a Municipal Corporator. Since the informant from the last two months was getting messages that he had been called to the petitioners office at Andheri at about 10.00 a.m. on 30.3.2000, he visited the petitioner’s office. At that time, the petitioner and one Iftekar were present. “Turn bahot paisa kama rahe ho, Tera hisab karna hai”. In the meantime, some other people came to the office and the informant escaped. Thereafter, he was called to the petitioner’s office many times but, did not go, inspite of the fact that the petitioner’s worker Salim Gandhi had gone to his shop and threatened his brother Minaz in terms that he should be sent to the office otherwise he would be taken from there. On 25.4.2000, at 7,30 p.m. while the informant was having tea in the house of Mrs. Tahir, the petitioner’s workers Salim Gandhi, Afzal and Suresh came there; called him out from the house; started assaulting him with fists and kicks and forcibly abducted him in an autorickshaw which was standing there and took him to the petitioner’s office. On the way. they assaulted him. Salim Gandhi and Suresh in the petitioner’s office in the presence of the petitioner assaulted him with two sticks which were lying there, and Afzal inflicted blows with his hands. Salim Gandhi told him that he should pay Rs. 15,00,000/- within one week or else they would cut him into pieces and kill him. Thereafter, they lied his hands and confined him in a latrine. Two hours later. Salim Gandhi and Suresh opened the door and threatened him to construct 15 houses for the petitioner within eight days in Patekar compound or pay them Rs. 15,00,000/ within the said time, otherwise he would be cut into pieces. They again locked him in the latrine and went away. At about 1.00 a.m. when he was in the latrine, his brother Wahid came; opened the door of the latrine; took him to the Cooper Hospital where he was medically examined and then look him home. The informant has alleged in the F.I.R. that on account of the petitioner’s threats, he did not complain about the incident to anyone and when the day earlier (on 26.4.2000) at about 4.00 p.m. Salim Gandhi and Suresh came and threatened him saying that he had seven days time left, he along with his brother came and lodged the F.I.R..

3. Going backwards, the injuries of the informant – Sayyed Asif Ziauddin Sayyed were medically examined on 26.4.2000 at 2.20 a.m. at Cooper Hospital by the Medical Officer on duly, who found swelling and bruises on his nose maxilla, supra scapula and scapula which were fresh simple in nature and attributable to a hard and blunt object. In the case history, all the injuries mentioned in, the Injury report are said to have been caused by stick and fist blows.

4. I have heard Mr. Majeed Memon for the petitioner at a considerable length. He has strenuously urged that although the incident took place between 7.30 p.m. on 25.4.2000 and 1.00 a.m. on 26,4.2000 the F.I.R. was lodged very belatedly on 27.4.2000 at 10.00 p.m. Mr. Memon urged that no plausible reasons explaining the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. have been furnished in the F.I.R. and the said delay shows that the prosecution allegations levelled Against the petitioner in the F.I.R. are cooked-up.

I have given my anxious consideration to Mr. Memon’s submission and I am constrained to observe that for two principal reasons, I do not find any merit in them:–

Firstly, because, the medical examination of the informant-victim which was conducted on 26.4.2000 at 2.20 a.m. at Cooper Hospital i.e. within seven hours of his abduction and one hour and twenty minutes of his being rescued by his brother (he was abducted on 25.4.2000 at 7.30 p.m. and rescued on 26.4.2000 at 1.00 a.m.) corroborates the recitals in the F.I.R. in-as-much as the allegation in the F.I.R. is that he was beaten by sticks and given kick and fist blows and his injury report shows swelling and bruises on nose, maxilla supra scapula and scapula, which as per the injury report were attributable to a hard and blunt object and were fresh and simple in nature.

Secondly, because, in the F.I.R. itself the informant has alleged that initially on account of the petitioner’s fear, he did not complain about the incident to anyone and it was only when yesterday i.e. 26.4.2000 at 4.00 p.m. when Salim Gandhi and Suresh came and threatened him that he bad seven days left with him, he came and lodged the F.I.R..

At any rate, the question whether the F.I.R. is belated or not is a question which can only be determined with finality after the informant has been examined in the Trial Court. At this stage, prima facie I find explanation for delay in the lodging of the F.I.R..

5. I would be failing in my fairness. If I do not mention that although Mr. Memon made some other submissions but, since he did not press them and desired that, they be not incorporated, in this order, I am not referring to them.

6. Mr. R.Y. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent strenuously opposed this anticipatory bail application and urged that the high-handed manner in which the informant was abducted and assaulted by the henchmen or the petitioner, at the behest of the petitioner, disentitles him to anticipatory bail. He urged that the petitioner being a Municipal Corporator was expected to behave in a most exemplary manner and not in the brazen-faced manner alleged by the informant in his F.I.R.. He finally urged that two other cases; both u/s 326 of the I.P.C. are pending against the petitioner and since while on bail in them, he committed the present offence, he does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

7. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Considering the gravity of the crime, the circumstance that being a Municipal Corporator the applicant was expected to abide by law but, instead violated it by committing the present offence as also the circumstance that while on bail in two cases u/s 326 of the I.P.C., he committed the present offence in rny view he is not entitled to being released on anticipatory bail.

I make no bones in observing that anticipatory bail is granted in exceptional cases where per se false implication of the person sought to be arrested is manifest and not in cases like the present one.

8. For the said reasons, I reject this application for anticipatory bail.

9. I make it explicit that the observations contained in this order are only relevant to the disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not influence the Court below when a regular application for bail is preferred on behalf of the petitioner. It should be borne in mind that considerations of a far more stringent nature weigh with the Court in considering an application for anticipatory bail as against one for regular bail.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.235 seconds.