Judgement 1. Rule. Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned APP, waives service of notice of rule, on behalf of the respondent State. 2. Present application is filed by the petitioner -original accused a Municipal Councilor / Corporator of Rajkot Municipality, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection with complaint being C.R.I. — No. 15 of 2008 registered with Thorala Police. Station for the. offences punishable under Sections 395, 188 and 427 of IPC read with Section 3(1) of Public Properties Act. 3. FIR being C.R. No. 1-15 of 2008 is lodged by one Shri Amarnath Maheshbhai Mishra, the first informant on 21.5.2008 at about 3.15. hours with Thorala Police Station for the incident which is alleged to have been occurred on 20.5.2008 at about 20.30 hours alleging inter alia, that he was serving in a Petrol Pump named and called as Jaynath Traders and was serving as Filterman in said petrol pump. That at the time between 10.30 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m. about 30 to 40 persons had come armed with stones and broken soda water bottles. It is further alleged that the said people started assaulting by pelting stones and the soda bottles on the petrol pump and they destroyed the petrol pump. It is further alleged that police, arrived at the scene, of offence, when the aforestated persons were causing destruction. The police tried to disperse the mob, however the mob was infuriated and they also tried to alight the petrol pump. The police fired tear gas shells and, therefore, mob dispersed. It is further alleged that he informed about the said incident to the owner Shri Vipulbhai Kotecha and when he arrived at petrol pump he found that there was a loss of Rs. 70,000/- with oil worth Rs. 30,000/- was also destroyed and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was also taken away by the mob. It is further alleged that it had come, to his knowledge that another petrol pump was also looted by the said mob and there also, lot of destruction was caused and, therefore, the aforesaid complaint came, to be lodged with Thorala Police. Station for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 188 and 427 of IPC read with Section 3(1) of Public Properties Act. Station for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 188 and 427 of IPC read with Section 3(1) of Public Properties Act. Investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer and during the investigation and inquiry the name of the applicant was disclosed that he was the leader of the mob and had instigated the mob and also actively participated in the commission of the. aforesaid offences. The applicant was apprehending his arrest in connection with the aforesaid complaint being C.R. No. 1-15 of 2.008 with Thorala Police Station and, therefore, he preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 736 of 2008 before, the learned Sessions judge, Rajkot under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail, which came to be. dismissed by the learned Sessions judge, Rajkot by his judgment and order dated 23.7.200. Hence, the applicant has preferred present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. 4. Shri B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing for the. applicant has vehemently submitted that he has not committed any offence as alleged for the offences punishable, under Sections 395, 188 and 427 of IPC read with Section 3(1) of Public Properties Act. It is submitted that petitioner is sought to be arrested on the statement of the co-accused and the statement of the co-accused is not admissible, in evidence, therefore, on the basis of the statement of the co-accused the petitioner cannot be arrested. It is submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place, of incident and is nowhere, connected in the alleged incident. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as the applicant is the Corporator/Councilor in the Corporation and with a mala fide intention to see that there is no agitation, which was started against the changing the name of the Municipal building. It is submitted that in fact the agitation was going on against the change of the name of the Municipal building and with a view to see that the said agitation is stopped with mala fide intention the applicant is falsely implicated. It is submitted that in fact the agitation was going on against the change of the name of the Municipal building and with a view to see that the said agitation is stopped with mala fide intention the applicant is falsely implicated. It is submitted that every person has a right to object and/or oppose and if such an attempt to stop the agitation is permitted it will be against the rule of democracy and nobody would be in a position to oppose and/or agitate and therefore, it is requested to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. It is submitted that manner in which the applicant is sought to be implicated in the case, is against the rule of democracy which cannot be tolerated in rule, of law and therefore, it is requested to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is also further submitted that in fact, the name of the applicant was not in the FIR and it was alleged that mob of about. 30 to 40 persons had come, armed with stones and broken soda water bottles and they have committed alleged destruction and the said story is unbelievable, more, particularly, the story of looting and taking away the Oil tins. It is further submitted that as such there is no role attributed to the applicant in the complaint and the applicant is reputed citizen of the Society and is in active politics and, therefore, if anticipatory bail is not granted his image, in the. society would be tarnished therefore, it is requested to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant 5. Application is opposed by Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned A.P.P. It is submitted that the name of the applicant is disclosed during the course of investigation and inquiry, it is submitted that at this stage, for the purpose of further investigation and inquiry those statements can be considered, may be of other co-accused. It is submitted that under the guise of agitation a person who might be a political leader or a leader of particular community has no business to destruct the public / private properties. It is submitted that incident has taken place around 10.30. p.m. and there cannot be any valid agitation at 10.30 p.m. and /or thereafter. It is submitted that under the guise of agitation a person who might be a political leader or a leader of particular community has no business to destruct the public / private properties. It is submitted that incident has taken place around 10.30. p.m. and there cannot be any valid agitation at 10.30 p.m. and /or thereafter. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the applicant might be necessary and manner in which the offence has been committed under the guise of the agitation and that too by a person like the petitioner who is Corporator / Councilor, it is requested not to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and not to consider the case for anticipatory bail. Under the circumstances, it is requested to dismiss the present application. 6. Heard the learned advocate for the respective, parties. FIR is lodged with Thorala Police Station against the mob of 30 to 40 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 188 and 427 of IPC r/w Section 3(1) of the. Public Properties Act for the offences alleged to have been happened after 10.30 p.m. on 20.5.2008. It is alleged that about 30 to 40 persons had come, armed with stones and broken soda bottles on the petrol pump and they destroyed the petrol pump. It is further alleged that the police arrived at the place of scene of offence when the said persons were causing destruction and police, had tried to disperse the mob, however the mob was infuriated and they also tried to alight the petrol pump. The police fired tear gas shells and only thereafter the mob is dispersed. It is alleged that there was a loss of Rs. 70,000/- are oil worth Rs. 30,000/- was also destroyed and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was also taken away/looted by the mob. It is also further alleged that the mob of 30 to 40 persons had also looted one another petrol pump and caused lot of destruction to the another petrol pump also. It is the case on behalf of the applicant that an agitation was going on against changing the name of the Municipal building and to stop the said agitation the name of the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is the case on behalf of the applicant that an agitation was going on against changing the name of the Municipal building and to stop the said agitation the name of the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also the submission on behalf of the applicant that such an attempt is against the rule of democracy and that every person has a right to raise, objection and to agitate for redressal of their grievance. It is true that every person has a right to raise objection and agitate for redressal of their grievance, but such persons have no right to cause in any manner a threats and apprehension of life, and liberty and properties of citizen and destruction of life. and properties. Under the guise of agitation nobody can be permitted to indulge into any illegal activity and nobody can be. permitted to damage the public and private properties and nobody can be permitted to take law in their hands. Every body has a right to participate in the demonstration but the same must be in a democratic manner. The case at hand is one which led the obstruction of properties and leading cause of the irresponsible and illegal acts of the persons whose names are disclosed during the course of investigation and inquiry inclusive of the applicant. Presence of the applicant in the mob is disclosed and established from the statement of the other persons during the course of investigation, who might be co-accused. If against such person/ persons any criminal proceedings are initiated, it cannot be said that it is against the rule of democracy. In the case of James Martin Vs. State of Kerala, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: In the name of Hartal or Bandh or strike no person has any right to cause inconvenience to any other person or to cause in any manner a threat or apprehension of risk to life, liberty, property of any citizen or destruction of life and property, and the feast any government or public property. It is high time that the authorities concerned take serious note of this requirement while dealing with those who destroy public property in the name of strike, hartal or bandh. It is high time that the authorities concerned take serious note of this requirement while dealing with those who destroy public property in the name of strike, hartal or bandh. Those who at times may have even genuine demands to make should not loose sight of the overall situation eluding control and reaching unmanageable bounds endangering life, liberty and property of citizens and public, enabling antisocial forces to gain control resulting in all around destruction with counter productive results at the expense of public order and public peace. No person has any right to destroy another’s property in the guise of bandh or hartal or strike, irrespective of the proclaimed reasonableness of the cause or the question whether there is or was any legal sanction for the same. The question whether bandh or hartal or strike has any legal sanctity is of little consequence in such matters. Unless such acts are controlled with iron hands, innocent citizens are bound to suffer and they shall be the victims of the highhanded acts of some fanatics with queer notions of democracy and freedom of speech or association. That provides for no license to take law into their own hands. Any soft or lenient approach for such offenders would be an affront to rule of law and challenge to public order and peace. Considering the above, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant who has indulged into such illegal activity under the guise of the agitation/ demonstration that too after 10.30 p.m. Accused agitation was against the change of name of Municipal Building for which Petrol Pump owners have nothing to do. 7. So far as the submission on behalf of the applicant that there is no evidence against the applicant and that his name is not in the FIR and is sought to be implicated on the statement of the accused which is not admissible, therefore, he should be granted anticipatory bail is concerned it is required to be noted that there is no bar on further investigation on the basis of the statement of the co accused recorded during the investigation. There can be further investigation against the persons whose names are disdosed. There can be further investigation against the persons whose names are disdosed. Whether the statement of the co-accused is admissible in evidence or not is not required to be considered at the time of investigation but the same can be considered during the trial if the same is used, the said aspect is required to be considered at that stage. Therefore the submission on behalf of the applicant to grant anticipatory bail on the aforesaid ground, cannot be accepted. 8. So far as the submission on behalf of the applicant that he is a political leader and Corporator / Councilor in the Corporation and is a reputed person and is not likely to runaway and he has right to raise voice and objection and agitate for the legitimate demand and hence demonstration is concerned it is required to be noted that being a leader, he might have, a right to agitate, and / or demonstrate and raise objection against some action but he has no right to take, law in their hands and destroy the public / private properties and harass the innocent persons under the guise, of the. agitation and / or demonstration. On the. contrary being Councilor / Corporator he should be more sensible and act with prudence. In the facts and circumstances of the case and manner in which the offences has been committed after 10.30 p.m. and the investigation is going on and there can be possibility of custodial interrogation as submitted by the learned A.P.P., according to this Court, this is not fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant for releasing him on anticipatory bail. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the applicant another person is released on bail by this Court is concerned it is to be noted that they are released on regular bail and not anticipatory bail. Even otherwise, so far as the applicant is concerned he is a Corporator/ Councilor of the Corporation and he has to be more responsible and has to act with more prudence rather than any other citizen and therefore his case cannot be compared with others. 9. For the reasons stated above, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, hence present application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. * * * * *