1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2015
DIST:-PUNE
In the matter of section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure;

And

In the matter of C.R. No. 65 OF

2015 registered with Loni
Kalbhor Police Station for the
offence punishable under
sections 302, 329, 341, 143,
147, 148, 149, 109, 201, 506,
324 of Indian Penal Code, section
4(25) of Arms Act and Section
 2

37(1) (3) r/w. 135 of Bombay

Police Act;

Shakti Uttam Badekar, ]

Aged 31 years, Occ: Business, ]
& Social Worker, residing ]
Badekar Vasti, Uruli Kanchan, ]
Tal. Haveli, Dist.- Pune. ]…Applicant
-Verses-
The State of Maharashtra ]
At the instance of Loni Kalbhor ]
Police station, Pune – C.R. No. ]
65/2015. ]…Respondent

TO

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

OTHER HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, BOMBAY

HUMBLE APPLICATION
OF THE APPLICANT
ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

1. The Applicant is apprehending his imminent

arrest in connection with C.R. No. 65 OF 2015
registered with Loni Kalbhor Police Station for the
offence punishable under sections 302, 329, 341,
143, 147, 148, 149, 109, 201, 506, 324 of Indian
Penal Code, section 4(25) of Arms Act and Section
37(1) (3) r/w. 135 of Bombay Police Act and
 3

therefore, by filing the present application, the

Applicant seeks to invoke the powers of this Hon’ble
Court vested under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution story, shorn of unnecessary

details, is a under:

(i) On 28.02.2015 at about 09:45 a.m., the

accused nos. 1 to 6, 8, 12 to 14 have formed an
unlawful assembly and on the ground that
deceased Chaitanya Dnyandeo Gawali on the
ground that he has having friendship with one
girl Sankika Kulkarni, with whom juvenile
conflict with Pranav Suresh Singh is having one
side love, assaulted the said deceased with
weapons viz. Gupti, sword, sickle, baseball stick
handle, etc. and committed his murder, while
the accused nos. 7, 9, 10 and 11 have tried to
disappear the Bullet motorcycle used in the
commission of offence.

(ii) Admittedly, the applicant was not present

at the place of offence. The supplementary
statement of informant dated 06.03.03.2015
shows that while the informant and witness
Mahesh Choudhary were trying to save the
deceased from the assault at the hands of
accused, accused Rushabh Badekar stated them
not to intervene else the matter will be
 4

proceeded to Shakti Dada and further they are

going to kill Chaitanya. In order to avoid
repetition and duplication of the assertions
made in the FIR, a copy whereof is hereto
annexed and marked as Exhibit “A”.

3. The applicant states and submits that being

apprehending of his arrest in the FIR under question,
had filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2256 of
2015 alongwith the application for interim relief.
However, the said application came up for hearing
before the Session Court, Pune on 14.07.2015,
wherein the Ld. Sessions Judge issued notice to the
State and adjourned the matter to 20.07.2015,
without granting interim protection to the applicant.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “B” is the
copy of the order dated 14.07.2015.

4. The applicant states and submits that

thereafter, the applicant filed Criminal Application No.
714 of 2015 before this Hon’ble Court and this
Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 27.07.2015
directed the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune to pass
interim order for grant of bail till the main
application is finally decided. Hereto annexed
and marked as Exhibit “C” is the copy of the said
order dated 27.07.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court.
 5

5. The applicant states and submits that

thereafter, the advocate for the applicant filed an
application alongwith the order passed by this
Hon’ble Court dated 27.07.2015 for taking the matter
on board on 04.08.2015 wherein the original
complainant filed an affidavit thereby stating that at
the time of commission of alleged crime the applicant
was not present and he has no objection to allow
application, which was pending before the Sessions
Court, Pune. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit
“D” is the copy of the affidavit filed by the original
complainant.

6. The applicant states and submits that despite

the aforesaid order dated 27.07.2015, the Ld.
Sessions Judge without passing interim order and/or
adjoining the said application, disposed of the interim
application as well as the main application on the
same day i.e. 04.08.2015. Hereto annexed and
marked as Exhibit “E” is the copy of the said order
dated 04.08.2015.

7. The applicant states and submits that he is

innocent and has been falsely implicated as an
accused in the aforesaid crime.

8. The applicant states and submits that it is

admittedly, he was not at present at the particular
 6

time and place of the alleged incident and has not

taken active part in commission of the alleged crime.
The only allegation mentioned in the F.I.R. against
the applicant is that one of the co-accused Ramesh
Ratan Badekar has stated to the co-accused that the
applicant has directed to kill the deceased Chaitanya
and while leaving the place of incident, all accused
loudly shouted as “Shakti Badekar Ki Jai Ho” and no
one should be dared to.

9. The applicant states and submits that he is a

social worker and Republican Party of India and
acquired a post of Deputy President for western
Maharashtra of the said political party. One day fast
was held on behalf of the party thereby demanding
the suspension of the police inspector Shri. Abhiman
Pawar of Loni Kalbhor Police Station on account of
threatening to a reporter Shri. Sitaram Landge with
his life and also for launching false prosecution
against another reported Mahesh Phaltankar.

10. The applicant further states and submits that

said shri. Abhiman Pawar is the investigating officer
in the present crime. In view of the aforesaid
agitation made on behalf of the Republican Party of
India participation of the applicant in it being the
Deputy President for Western Maharashtra, the said
Investigating Officer has falsely implicated the
applicant in the present crime.
 7

11. The applicant states and submits that the

investigating officer has inserted the portion
regarding the siogans given by the main offenders
regarding “Shakti Badekar Ki Jai ho” and no one
should dare to have with the boys of Shakti Badekar.
It is submitted that original complainant has never
stated the portion in his statement wherein the other
accused persons, who have actively participated in
commission of the crime, have named the present
applicant to be the instigator for them in commission
of the alleged crime. As such the original complainant
has submitted an affidavit to that effect. Moreover,
the statement made by the accused cannot be
admissible in evidence.

12. The applicant states and submits that the

Sessions Court, Pune did not consider the fact that
the complainant has filed an affidavit in the petition
field by the applicant for quashing of FIR/Chargsheet,
as in the said affidavit, the complainant clearly
stated that he has no objection to quash the
proceeding as against the applicant.

13. The applicant states and submits that after

conducting the complete investigation, the
respondent filed charge sheet before the Sessions
Court, Pune. From careful perusal of the charge
sheet, it can be clearly seen that whatever allegation
made against the applicant has no any substance and
 8

all the allegations are devoid of any merits and

hence, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is
unwarranted and not called for and hence, he is
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

14. Arrest and detention of a person in police

custody causes incalculable harm to his reputation
and self-esteem. It visits a person with disastrous
consequences and his reputation and image is
shattered, if his arrest is effected, irrespective of his
complicity or material available against him and
complicity or material available against him and
therefore, as has been observed by the Apex Court in
the matter of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P.-
(1994) 4 SCC 260. The Apex Court in the said
decision has held in no unclear terms that arrest of a
person causes incalculable harm to a person’s
reputation and self-esteem and therefore arrest is to
be avoidable as far as possible and is required to be
resorted to only in heinous offences.

15. The Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra –
(2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down certain parameters
for grant of anticipatory bail. The apex court has
held as under:

“A great ignominy, humiliation and

disgrace is attached to arrest. Arrest leads
to many serious consequences not only for
the accused but for the entire family and at
times for the entire community”.
 9

16. Similarly, in para 112, the Apex Court in the

matter of Siddharam Mhetre (supra) has laid down
certain guidelines and it would be appropriate at this
stage to reproduce the same as under:-

(i) The nature and gravity of the

accusation and the exact role of the
accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant

including the fact as to whether the
accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court
in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of applicant to flee from

justice;

(iv) The possibility of the applicant to flee

from justice;

(v) Whether the accusations have been

made only with the object of injuring
or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail

particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large
number of people.

(viii)The courts must evaluate the entire

available material against the accused
very carefully. The court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of
the accused in the case. The cases in
 10

which the accused is implicated with

the help of section 34 and 149 of the
Penal Code, 1860 the court should
consider with even greater care and
caution because over implication in the
cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern.

(viii)while considering the prayer for grant

of anticipatory bail, a balance has to
be struck between two factors,
namely, no prejudice should be caused
to the free, fair and full investigation
and here should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and
unjustifiable detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable

apprehension of tampering of the
witness or apprehension of threat to
the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always

be considered and it is only the
element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant
of bail and in the event of there being
some doubt as to the genuineness of
the prosecution in the normal course
of events, the accused is entitled to an
order of bail.”

The Apex Court has held in para 13 in the

matter of Siddharam Mhetre (Supra) as under:

“Arrest should be the last option and it

should be restricted to those
exceptional cases where arresting the
accused is imperative in the facts and
circumstances of that case. The court
 11

must carefully examine the entire

available record and particularly the
allegations which have been directly
attributed to the accused and these
allegations are corroborated by other
material and circumstances on
record.”

17. The applicant has deep roots in the society and

hence, there is no possibility of his absconding and/or
running away from the course of justice.

18. The applicant is ready and willing to co-operate

with the investigating agency and to abide by all the
reasonable terms and conditions which this Hon’ble
Court may impose while granting him anticipatory
bail. The applicant is ready to furnish surety to this
Hon’ble Court and thus, the applicant deserve to be
protected by this Hon’ble Court by granting
anticipatory bail in exercise of power vested under
section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

19. The Applicant states and submits that he has

not filed any other application, either in this Hon’ble
Court or in any other court(s) of India, touching the
subject matter of the present application, save and
except what have been stated hereinabove.

20. The applicant craves leave of this Hon’ble Court

to add, alter, amend, delete and/or rescind any of the
 12

averments and/or submissions mentioned

hereinabove, with the leave of this Hon’ble Court.

Under these facts and circumstances, applicant

therefore most humbly prays as under:

(a) that in the event of arrest of applicant in

connection with C.R. No. 65 OF 2015
registered with Loni Kalbhor Police Station
for the offence punishable under sections
302, 329, 341, 143, 147, 148, 149, 109,
201, 506, 324 of Indian Penal Code,
section 4(25) of Arms Act and Section
37(1) (3) r/w. 135 of Bombay Police Act,
shall be directed to be enlarged on bail
forthwith on such reasonable terms and
conditions, as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper;

(b) pending the hearing and final disposal of

this application, in the event of arrest of
applicant in connection with C.R. No. 65 OF
2015 registered with Loni Kalbhor Police
Station for the offence punishable under
sections 302, 329, 341, 143, 147, 148,
149, 109, 201, 506, 324 of Indian Penal
Code, section 4(25) of Arms Act and
Section 37(1) (3) r/w. 135 of Bombay
Police Act, shall be directed to be enlarged
on bail forthwith on such reasonable terms
and conditions, as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper;
 13

(c) interim and ad-interim relief in term of

prayer clause(b) above be granted;

(d) any other further order and/or direction be

given as the nature and circumstances of
the case may require.

Mumbai;
This 1st day of September, 2015
Drafted by Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar

SUBHASH HULYALKAR
Advocate for the Applicant
 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2015
DIST:-PUNE
Shakti Uttam Badekar …Applicant
-Verses-
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page

No.
1. Synopsis
2. Anticipatory Bail Application
3. Exhibit “A”
Copy of FIR
4. Exhibit “B”
Copy of order dated 14.07.2015
5. Exhibit “C”
Copy of order dated 27.07.2015
6. Exhibit “D”
Copy of affidavit filed by
complainant
7. Exhibit “E”
Copy of order dated 04.08.2015
8. Vakalatnama
Last Page
 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2015
DIST:-PUNE
Shakti Uttam Badekar …Applicant
-Verses-
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

SYNOPSIS

On the basis of the complaint filed by

the complainant, the respondent
police station registered FIR under
question for the offences as
mentioned and set out therein.

14.07.2015 The applicant filed anticipatory bail

application before the Sessions Court,
Pune alongwith interim application,
however, the Sessions Court, Pune
adjourned the matter without granting
interim protection to the applicant.

27.07.2015 The applicant filed an application

before this Hon’ble Court against the
said order of the Sessions Court,
Pune, after hearing the said
application, this Hon’ble Court
directed the Sessions Court, Pune to
 16

grant interim protection to the

applicant.

04.08.2015 Despite the aforesaid order passed by

this Hon’ble Court and same being
placed before the Sessions Court,
disposed of the both the applications
without granting interim protection to
the applicant.

01.09.2015 Hence, the present application filed in

this Hon’ble Court.

POINTS TO BE URGED
As mentioned in the application

ACTS APPLICABLE
1. Indian Penal Code
2. Code of Criminal Procedure
3. Others if any, with the leave of this Hon’ble
Court.

JUDGMENTS APPLICABLE
As mentioned in the application
Mumbai;
This 1st day of September, 2015

SUBHASH HULYALKAR
Advocate for the Applicant
 17

VERIFICATION

I, Shakti Uttam Badekar, the Applicant abovenamed,

do hereby state and declare on solemn affirmation
that what have been stated herein above are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and I believe the same to be true and correct.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai )

This 1st day of June, 2015 )

Deponent

SUBHASH HULYALKAR Before me,

Advocate for the Applicant