Judgment:
G.R. Luthra, J.
(1) The present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail. The accusation against the petitioner is that he had offence punishable under Sections 307/201/114 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act at a place within the jurisdiction of police station Santa Cruz, Bombay (Maharashtra) The Crime Report is Cr 328/85 and the investigation is being done by Detection of Crime Branch, Bombay, CID-Bombay Unit VI.
(2) The occurrence, according to the prosecution, took place on 12th April 1985 near Hotel Sands Juhu, Santa Cruz, Bombay-49- But the report was, however, recorded on 29th August 1985 at 4 p.m.
(3) Briefly speaking the case of the prosecution is as follows. On 12th April 1985 at 8 a.m. the petitioner accompanied by a lady came to hire a taxi. He engaged Taxi of one Dewan Singh, on whose report the first information report was recorded. Then the petitioner told Dewan Singh that he should wait for some time because another person was to join them. Thereafter Jagdish, another accused, came up. He had already engaged a taxi. Jagdish told the petitioner and the lady that they could sit in the taxi. engaged by him and could go. Dewan Singh however told the petitioner that either Rs. 3.50 which was the minimum fare should be paid to him and his taxi should be let off or if he wanted to engage his taxi Rs. 3.50 should be paid to the taxi driver engaged by Jagdish. On this Jagdish became enraged and started abusing. The petitioner, who happens to be a wrestler, threw Dewan Singh on the ground. Then Jagdish took out a revolver from the right side pocket of his pant and fired one round on Dewan Singh. The other taxi drivers who happened to be assembled there started running away. The petitioner snatched the revolver from the hands of Jagdish and fired on round in the direction of the drivers who were running away. Thereafter Jagdish got into the taxi engaged by him and went away. The petitioner also went away from the place of occurrence with the revolver. The lady was however left at the spot. The taxi drivers surrounded her. The matter was reported to the police. Si Surve came at the spot. He took the lady as well as some drivers to the police station. The petitioner was also brought to the police station. The matter was hushed up by way of giving Rs. 70.00 to each of the drivers of the taxis who had come to the police station.
(4) However, there was some report against Si Surve in respect of hushing up the matter about which an enquiry proceeded and Dewan Singh was called. On the basis of statement of Dewan Singh, Crime Report No. 328/85 was recorded. The Bombay police wants to arrest the petitioner. He, thereforee, came up for grant of anticipatory bail because he happened to be living at Delhi and it is with the assistance of Delhi police that the arrest of the petitioner is sought.
(5) Interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner on 24th September 1985, which was extended from time to time and is valid uptil today. The State of Maharashtra opposes the application and is represented by Mr. B R. Handa, Advocate. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Crime Report (which is called Fir in Delhi) was registered after a period of 4' months of the alleged occurrence, that the matter would not have come to the surface at all but for some enmity between Si Surve and his superiors, and that, thereforee, it is a fit case for the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra urges that the police has to make recovery of the revolver which was used, that for that purpose it is necessary to have the arrest of the petitioner and that, thereforee, anticipatory bail should not be granted at all and if granted it should be only for a limited period with a direction to the petitioner to obtain further bail from the court of competent jurisdiction in Bombay.
(7) As held (paragraph 19 of the judgment) in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab, : 1980CriLJ1125 , the mere fact that recovery is to be made from an accused is no ground for refusing anticipatory bail and that for the purpose of satisfying the requirement of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, an accused can be either taken into custody temporarily only for some moments or can be deemed to be in custody by using some words or action.
(8) Having regard to all the circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case and also having regard to the delayed registration of the report under Section 154 Criminal Procedure Code . I am of the view that the anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner. However, it will be proper that the anticipatory bail should be for a limited period of three months for enabling the petitioner to have bail from a court of-competent jurisdiction because those are the courts who have ultimately to take cognizance of the offence.
(9) Under these circumstances I extend the anticipatory bail already granted on 24th September 1985 for a period of three months from today i.e. up to 30th January 1986 and the petitioner may, if he so likes, obtain further extension of bail from the court to competent jurisdiction at Bombay.
(10) Criminal Misc. (Main) 1084 of 1985 stands disposed of.