CRI.BAIL APPLN.NO.

1867/2016
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
1. This application is filed by the applicant/accused Prashant Shankarrao Thorat for bail u.s. 439
in Crime No.I347/2016 of Mumbra Police Station under Sections 376, 507 and 504 of Indian
Penal Code.

2. The prosecution story in short is as follows:

2.1. Since last 3 years, the informant is residing alongwith her husband and two daughters.
Applicant, Dr. Prashant is having Clinic by name Sanjeevani Clinic at near St. Mary School,
Mumbra Devi Colony, Diva and he is family doctor of informant. Approximately, six months
before, the informant fell down at the time of filing up water at her home and got injury to her
waist, so the complainant went alone to Dr. Prashant's Clinic at 1.00 p.m. That time Dr.
Prashant gave her injection, thereafter she was feeling dizziness, so Dr. Prashant told her to
take rest on bed. Thereafter, she was unconscious for two hours. When she wakes up she saw
that, lace of her paijama was open and she realized that, Dr. Prashant had sexual relation with
her. That time she told to Dr. Prashant that, “ aapne mere sath galat kiya hai ”. So, Dr.
Prashant told that, “tum gusse me bol rahi ho, tum abhi ghar jao, mai tumko baadme phone
karta hu.” and sent her to her home. Due to fear, she did not tell this incident to any one as
well as her husband. Thereafter, 2/3 days Dr. Prashant called her on 9819485311 from his
mobile 8898659496 and threatened her that, “ mere paas tumhara video hai. Tum mere paas
nahi aayi to mai thumare pati ko video dikhayega aur internet pe dalega.” Thereafter, on
23.06.2016 Dr. Prashant again called her and threatened that, “tum aati ho ki nahi, tumhara
video netpar dal du kya.”

2.2 On 23.06.2016 she informed the said incident to her husband, thereafter on 8.07.2016 her
husband went to the clinic of Dr. Prashant to inquire about the same, that time Dr. Prashant
abused her husband and threatened that, “ tula kai karayche te kar”. Thereafter, they lodge
FIR against Dr. Prashant.

3. The Investigating Officer has filed his Say below Exh.4 and resisted the application on the
ground that the offence is of serious nature and if bail granted he may tamper the evidence by
putting pressure on witnesses.

4. Heard Ld. Advocate Supriya Kadam for the applicant. She submitted that delay in lodging
FIR suggests that it is a false FIR. The alleged incident is occurred in January,2016. However,
the same is disclosed by her to her husband on 23.06.2016 and thereafter on 18.07.2016 her
husband went to Clinic of this applicant/accused and when applicant/accused abused and
threatened her husband she has filed present FIR. Bare reading of FIR itself suggests a falsity.
The person who is husband of any women if came to know about the incident he will not wait
for such a long period to lodge either FIR or to ask or to take revenge from the accused. The
conduct of the informant and her husband prima facie appears to be unnatural. Therefore, she
prayed for bail.
5. She further submitted that investigation is almost completed and reasons given by
Investigating Officer in say for refusal of bail are not proper and sufficient.

6. Heard Ld. APP Smt. Khandagale for prosecution. She submitted that offence is of serious
nature. The offence alleged to be done by Doctor. If this type of offence committed by Doctor
it will not be good for society. Therefore, she prayed for refusal of bail.

7. When this Court asked to the Investigating Officer to submit the case diary, the Investigating
Officer has submitted some papers tagged in one tag. The papers are easily removable. The
papers which were produced by Investigating Officer are not within the meaning of Section
172 of Cr.P.C., as amended. It is neither in bound volume, nor duly paginated. After perusal
of the papers, it appears that Investigating Officer failed to maintain case diary in proper form
in this serious offence.

8. Surprisingly, in Thane District it appears that more than 95% the Investigating Officers did
not maintain case diary in proper form though it is mandatory as per the Criminal Procedure
Code. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Atluri Padma Venkateshwara Rao V/s.
P.I. Pawar & Ors. 2011 Cri.L.J. 1439 directed to State to ensure that case diary shall be
maintained in proper form during the investigation. By this order the duty is casted on the
trial court to ensure and insist for proper case diary. Though this amendment is enforced since
2009, even then police department in Thane failed to comply with this amendment. The act of
the Police Department in this regard not only disregard of law but it is also amounting to
contempt of Hon'ble Bombay Court. Therefore, I feel it necessary to brought this serious
lacuna on the part of the investigation, which is going on in Thane District in general, to the
notice of the Commissioner of the Police, Thane.

9. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has specifically stated in Mrs.Atluri Padma Venkateshwara
Rao vs. P.I. Pawar and Ors., 2011 Cri.L.J 1439 that:

“2. We are shocked to hear such argument by the Public Prosecutor that too instructions given
by such senior Police Officers, inspite of the mandatory requirement specified in Section
172(1B) of the Code which has come into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The same postulates that the
diary referred to in Subsection (1) of Section 172 shall be in volume and duly paginated. The
dictionary meaning of term "volume" reads as follows: Volume: a book forming part of a work
or series. A single book or a bound collection of printed sheets. [see Oxford English
Dictionary, Indian Edition, Eleventh Edition]

3. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that possibility of tampering with the case diary or
realigning the same at a later date to sub serve the prosecution case or the investigation done,
is completely ruled out.

4 ........

5. We therefore direct the Secretary of the Home department to forthwith issue appropriate
instructions to all concerned to comply with the mandate of changed legal position which has
come into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009; and which must be observed by every Police Officer
entrusted with the investigation of a case under Chapter XII of the Code, to maintain case
diary in the form so prescribed. Such instructions be issued forthwith in any case not later
than two weeks from today. Needless to observe that the trial Courts across the State must
also insist for compliance of the above requirements in every case before them hereafter.
10. The loose sheets of the case diary point towards a very dangerous possibility and the
possibility is that any of offender or a criminal can be shown to be innocent by simply
changing the statement of witnesses at a later stage and, on the contrary, an innocent person
can be made an offender in the same way.

11. In absence of any guidelines regarding the maintenance of case diary the Commissioner of
Police may take the help of guidelines issued by Hon'ble Gauwati High Court in this regard in
case of Md.Fakhrul Islam, APS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guwahati City,
Guwahati, Sri Kandarpa Chamua, Inspector of Police, Officer in charge, Paltan Bazar Police
Station, Guwahati, Sri Kurkendra Mandal, Investigating Officer, Paltan Bazar Police
Station, Guwahati and Sri Mukunda Nath, Constable, Paltan Bazar Police Station,
Guwahati in Criminal Petition (Suo Mote) No.58 of 2007 (vide order passed in Misc. Case
No.58 of 2007 in Bail Application No.422 of 2007 dated 04.05.2012 reported in
MANU/GH/0113/2012: 2012(3)GLD 641(Gau). In Para 14 of said order hon'ble High Court
given a guidelines regarding maintenance of case diary which are reproduced below for
information :

a) Case Diary:

(i) The Case Diary shall invariably be bound and paginated containing a specific
number of pages.

(ii) It shall be the duty of every Senior Police Officials to inspect the case diary and to
certify his satisfaction/dissatisfaction about the manner in which the case diary is
maintained.

(iii) The Magistrates, too, shall inspect as to whether the provisions of SubSection 1A
and 1B of Section 172 CrPC have been complied with or not, whenever a case
diary is called for by the Magistrate. Any lapse, in this regard, shall be immediately
reported to the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned so that corrective
measures can be taken.

(iv) The Superintendent of Police of each district shall ensure that the case diary is,
henceforth, maintained in bound book, i.e., volume as per the mandate of the
amendment made to Section 172 CrPC.

(v) The blank and bounded case diaries shall be in the custody of the OfficerinCharge
of the police station and he shall be responsible for any damage or loss to case
diaries, while in his possession.

(vi) The Investigating Officers shall be handed over a blank case diary only when he is
entrusted with a case for investigation.

(vii) Each Investigating Officer shall be handed over as many case diaries as the number
of cases he is investigating at any given point of time.
 (viii) The practice of recording statements of witnesses or accused in loose sheets shall
be discontinued and the statements of shall be recorded only in the case diary.
Loose sheets shall not, in any circumstance, be attached to the case diar

(ix) If the pages of a case diary are exhausted in investigating a particular case, then,
another case diary shall be issued to that officer, and the Investigating Officer shall,
thereafter, record his further investigation in the other case diary.

(x) If any page, in a case diary, is damaged or there is any error in recording
something in a page, that particular page shall not be torn out, but the damaged
page or otherwise shall remain in the case diary and form part of the same.

(xi) Whenever the police opens the case diary, the time shall be specifically mentioned
and, thereafter, everything that the officer does in furtherance of the investigation
and the names of the persons whom he meets for investigation, etc., shall be
mentioned alongwith the time. The diary shall be updated as soon as practicable.

(xii) The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the loss of any page in a case
diary or the diary itself and shall be accountable for the same.

(xiii) Each case diary shall have serial number assigned to it and there shall be a register
which should contain the details of the case number and the name of the
Investigating Officer, who was issued the case diary of the particular serial
number.

(xiv) The case diary shall invariably be produced before the Magistrate in case any
person is arrested and his remand is sought for.

(xv) The information technology should be used to maintain case diary, wherever it is
possible.

(xvi) If the Police Officer visits or raids the house of an accused, the date and time of
such visit or raid shall be maintained in the case diary alongwith the name(s) of the
persons(s), who may be present on the occasion of such visit or raid.

12. Further non maintenance of case diary in prescribed form is an offence under S. 166 and 166 A
(b) of Indian Penal Code committed by investigation officer, who being a public servant
knowingly disobeys directions of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct the
investigation

13. I, therefore, in this bail application itself issued notice/directions to the Commissioner of
Police, Thane to bring the Judgment of Hon,ble High Court and amended provision to the
notice of all Police officers within the jurisdiction of Thane District so as to avoid contempt
petition and criminal prosecution in this regard to be faced by any of the Investigating Officer
hereinafter.
 14. Now coming back to the facts of this case, I have gone through the FIR. The papers produced
by the Investigating Officer shows that admittedly applicant/accused has been arrested on
18.07.2016. After perusal of the FIR, and submission of learned advocate for applicant, at this
stage, I restrained myself from making any comments regarding prima facie genuineness of
the case for fair investigation.

15. The Investigating Officer has not advanced any valid strong ground to keep this applicant
behind bar for further period. Further Investigating Officer has availed sufficient opportunity
to investigate this matter with applicant/accused. It appears that investigation of this case is
almost completed. The ground that if the applicant/accused is released on bail, he may
tamper the evidence, is not appear to be sufficient to reject this bail application. Hence, I am of
the view that bail application of the applicant is deserves be granted. Hence, I pass the
following order :

ORDER
1. The application Exh.1 is allowed.

2. The applicant/accused be released on furnishing of P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen

3. The applicant is directed to attend concerned police station on every Sunday at 11.00 a.m. to
1.00 p.m. till further 60 days.

4. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and not to give any threats to
the complainant or witnesses.

5. The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without permission of the Court.

6. Bail before Lower Court.

7. The Commissioner of the Police, Thane is hereby directed:

a) To go through Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. as amended and also go through the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Atluri Padma Venkateshwara Rao V/s. P.I. Pawar & Ors.
2011 Cri.L.J. 1439, and implement the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
said Judgment in respect of maintenance of case diary.

b) To bring this amended provision and Judgment to the notice of all the Police Stations and
Investigating Officers within the jurisdiction of Thane within 15 days, from the date of receipt
of this order.
:
c) Hereinafter, if this Court found any Investigating Officer does not follow the provision of the
Cr.P.C. and guidelines of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in respect of maintenance of case
diary in proper form, then this Court will constrain to take legal action by issuing contempt
 notice to concerned investigating officer treating that it is the willful disregard to the law and
order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

d) The responsibility to implement the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of
investigations within the jurisdiction of District is casted upon the Commissioner of Police.

e) In absence of any guidelines regarding the maintenance of case diary the Commissioner of
Police may take the help of guidelines issued by Hon'ble Gauwati High Court in this regard in
case of Md.Fakhrul Islam, APS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guwahati City,
Guwahati, Sri Kandarpa Chamua, Inspector of police, Officerincharge, Paltan Bazar Police
Station, Guwahati, Sri Kurkendra Mandal, Investigating Officer, Paltan Bazar Police
Station, Guwahati and Sri Mukunda Nath, Constable, Paltan Bazar Police Station,
Guwahati in Criminal Petition (Suo Mote) No.58 of 2007 (vide order passed in Misc. Case
No.58 of 2007 in Bail Application No.422 of 2007 dated 04.05.2012 reported in
MANU/GH/0113/2012: 2012(3)GLD 641(Gau).

( P. R. Kadam )
Thane, Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane

Date : 05.08.2016