1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1300 OF 2009. 1. Shaikh Salim Abdul Razzak & others. ...Applicants. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. WTIH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1351 OF 2009. 1. Shaikh Firoz Abdul Razzak & others. ...Applicants. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. ... Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate h/f Mr.N.B.Narwade, Advocate for the applicants in both the Criminal Applications. Mrs.R.R.Mane, APP for the respondent in both the Criminal Applications. ... 2 CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. Date : 10th June, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. Both these applications can be decided by this common order. All eight applicants in these two applications are seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.93/2009 registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Arms Act and also under Sections 37(1)(3) of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The offence was registered on 16th March, 2009 immediately after the incident. It is the prosecution case that the applicants are brothers interse who had grudge against one Ayyaj the complainant who happens to be their brother-in- law (their sister's husband). It is not in dispute that complainant Ayyaj had deserted the applicants' sister and on this count there is strained relationship between the parties. Certain litigation is also pending between Ayyaj and his wife. In this background, one has to appreciate the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant Ayyaj stated that on 16th March, 2009 at about 01.00 p.m. he, his brother Siraj, his nephew Mohasin had gone for shopping near 3 Mochi Galli. Suddenly, the applicants rushed towards them. They were armed with weapons like revolver, sticks iron rods, swords etc.. They asked the complainant as to why he was not maintaining their sister etc.. Within short time, they launched their assault on the complainant and his two companions. The complainant and his companions sustained injuries due to this assault. During the incident, the complainant also asserted that the applicants snatched away the gold chain and an amount of Rs.14000/- which he had carried in his pocket. As said above, immediately after the incident the matter was reported to the police and all the three victims were sent for medical examinations and injuries were noticed on their persons. The complainant sustained serious injuries. Four of them were grievous. The presence of injuries found immediately after the incident on the persons of the victims ruled out possibility of applicants' false implication. In a case like this, what is also required to be seen is whether there is exaggeration in the narration. In order to rule out that possibility, I asked the prosecution to show me the statements of eye witnesses. The eye witnesses described the incident in detail giving names of all the applicants as assailants. The learned Advocates appearing for the applicants tried to persuade me to look into comparative 4 seriousness of the roles attributed to each of the applicants. But, I am not inclined to go into such details. Once I found that prima facie there is no exaggeration on the part of the prosecution witnesses and once the possibility of exaggeration is ruled out, all the applicants should be viewed in similar fashion. The applicants due to the enmity with the complainant had assaulted him at broad day light in a public place. Considering the number of injuries sustained by the victims, it is apparent that the assault was quite vigorous. There can be argument as to whether offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, is maintainable, yet the manner in which the incident had occurred would lead to a conclusion that the applicants had no regard to law and order. In such situation, the applicants do not deserve anticipatory bail which is a discretionary relief. Both the applications stand rejected. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) lkp