1 Criminal Application No.1219/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1219 OF 2011 Ezaz Abdul Sattar Bagwan ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 22nd March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. In Crime No.101/2010, registered at Pachora Police Station, dated 6.9.2010 for offence under Sections 307, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 36(1)(3) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the accused/ applicant seeks anticipatory bail. 2. On election issue, there were clashes between two groups. The applicant was heading one of the group, allegedly assaulted the complainant Jamilkhan Bashirkhan and his brother Shakilkhan on 6.9.2010. In successive events, assaulted Jamilkhan with a log at his right wrist, while assaulted Shakil with a 2 Kg. 2 Criminal Application No.1219/2011 weighment at his head, due to which he suffered grievous bleeding injury and was admitted in hospital. 3. The accused/ applicant, by his F.I.R. No.102/2010, also informed that one Sharifkhan Bashirkhan assaulted with an iron tommy at head and Bashirkhan assaulted him by a stone. 4. Record reveals, after 6.9.2010 the accused/ applicant successfully evaded his arrest. His earlier application was permitted to be withdrawn as not pressed on 21.10.2010. Thereafter again he moved this Court afresh on 19.3.2011. These aspects reveal the clout the accused/ applicant has with investigator or in the society to evade his arrest. The nature of injuries suffered by the complainant referred above, warrants custodial interrogation including recovery of the alleged instruments. Release of other accused persons on bail or even in terms of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code would not be applicable with identical parameters as everybody has a distinct and specific role in the affairs of assault being members of a unlawful assembly. Application lacks merits, dismissed. Observations are prima facie. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri1070.2011