1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1435 OF 2010 1 Raju s/o Ramrao Kadam, age 26 yrs., occ. Education, 2 Ajay s/o Sanjay Kadam, age 20 yrs., occ. Education, 3 Arvind s/o Sudarshan Kadam, age 20 yrs., occ. Education, 4 Santosh s/o Bhaurao Renge, age 22 yrs., occ. Education, All r/o Ghoti, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. ....Applicants VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra, through police station Kinwat, District Nanded ...Respondent W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1437 OF 2010 1 Bandu s/o Masnaji Kalaskar, age 35 years, occ. Labour, 2 Balu s/o Khandu Renge, age 30 years, occ. Labour, 3 Balaji s/o Sitaram Renge, age 30 years, occ. Labour, 4 Subhash s/o Bhimrao Gaikwad, age 36 years, occ.Labour, 5 Bhaurao s/o Khandu Renge, 2 age 42 years, occ. Labour, 6 Amol s/o Devrao Garad, age 35 years,occ. Labour, 7 Santosh s/o Ramrao Kadam, age 28 years, occ. Agril., 8 Kailash s/o Khandu Renge, age 32 years, occ. All r/o Ghoti, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. ....Applicants VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra, through police station Kinwat, District Nanded ...Respondent AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1438 OF 2010 1 Sanjay s/o Champatrao Kadam, age 30 years, occ. Agril., r/o Ghoti, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. ....Applicant VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra, through police station Kinwat, District Nanded ...Respondent ..... Shri N.N.Chitlange, advocate for the applicants Smt. Vaishali Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... 3 CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 19th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri N.N.Chitlange, advocate for the applicants and Smt. Vaishali Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 Since Criminal Application Nos. 1435 of 2010, 1437 of 2010 and 1438 of 2010 arise out of one and the same incident under same C.R. No. I-41 of 2010, those are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3 These are the applications preferred by respective applicants apprehending their arrest under CR No. I-41 of 2010, registered at Kinwat police station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 336, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely Jagjivan Deorao Bhusare on 22.3.2010 at about 12.30 p.m. alleging that the incident took place at about 8.30 a.m. on the said date on account of agreement about the contract of employment and there were exchange of words in that respect. It is alleged that the complainant along with his maternal uncle, namely Shivaji Patil and others namely Gajanan Bhusare and 4 Suresh Patil came to Ghoti Phata and found that one of the applicants, namely Sanjay Kadam was sitting in the shop and thereupon the complainant’s maternal uncle Shivaji Patil asked him why he abused the complainant on account of employment of Shridhar Pawar with the complainant, but Sanjay Kadam started abusing him and lifted nearby brick and threw it on the left cheek and thereby he sustained bleeding injury, as well as he sustained head injury also. It is also alleged that thereafter said Sanjay Kadam called his relatives on telephone and accordingly they came by a tractor comprising Raju Kadam, Ajay Kadam, Arvind Kadam, and Santosh Renge i.e. applicants in Criminal Application No. 1435 of 2010 as well as comprising Khandu Kalaskar, Balu Renge, Balaji Renge, Subhash Gaikwad, Bhaurao Renge, Amol Garad, Santosh Kadam i.e. applicants in Criminal Application No. 1437 of 2010 and Sanjay Champatrao Kadam i.e. applicant in Criminal Application No. 1438 of 2010, and some of them were armed with iron rods. It is further alleged that the said assailants alighted from the said tractor and Santosh Renge assaulted the complainant on his back as well as Ajay Kadam assaulted Arvind Bhusare by tommy on his head, as well as Arvind Kadam assaulted Prashant Bhusare by stick on his head, as well as Amol Garad assaulted Gajanan Bhusare by tomy on his head, and thereby he sustained head injury as well as Subhash Gaikwad and Balu Renge also assaulted the complainant and other injured persons and thereby they sustained respective injuries. 5 On the afore said background, learned counsel for the 5 applicants canvassed that the applicant Sanjay Kadam in Criminal Application No. 1438 of 2010 also filed complaint i.e. C.R. No. 40 of 2010 at 10.30 a.m., which is earlier in point of time than the complaint in the present application and the injured persons and other herein are made accused in the said complaint, and accordingly, it is canvassed that there are cross complaints and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the applicants herein to take the revenge and as a counter blast to the earlier complaint. It is also urged that omnibus allegations are made against the applicants and no specific role/overt act has been attributed against the applicants herein. It is further submitted that Raju Kadam, Santosh Renge, Ajay Kadam and Arvind Kadam are the students and they also have been implicated in the present case and learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is false implication in the present case, and therefore, present application be allowed. 6 Learned A.P.P. opposed the present Criminal Applications vehemently and submitted that the injured persons Arvind Bhusare, Gajanan Bhusare and Jagjivan Bhusare have sustained head injuries and spot panchanama discloses the blood stains and the bricks on the spot of the incident which were used during the occurrence of the incident. It is also canvassed that the other weapons used in the occurrence of the incident, such as tommy and iron rod are yet to be recovered and the applicants have been absconding and they are not available for investigation purpose, and therefore, further investigation has come to 6 a grinding halt. It is also urged that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for further progress in the investigation. 7 On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions of the respective parties, although there are cross complaints filed by two groups against each other, the injuries sustained by injured persons, namely Arvind Bhusare, Jagjivan Bhusare and Gajanan Bhusare are the head injuries as per the injury certificate dated 22.3.2010. Moreover, spot panchanama discloses the blood stains on the spot as well as bricks found on the spot which were alleged used during the occurrence of the incident. Moreover, other incriminating weapons, such as iron rod, tommy are yet to be recovered, since the applicants were not available for investigation purpose and allegedly they were absconding since the occurrence of the incident. Besides that, on perusal of the contents of the complaint, it appears that specific overt act and role has been attributed to some of the applicants and other applicants have participated in the occurrence of the incident. Hence, I am of the view that, apparently, there is no false implication of the applicants, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective. However, name of applicant no.8 in Criminal Application No. 1437 of 2010, namely Kailas Khandu Renge has not been figured in the complaint as well as no specific role/overt act has been attributed against him, and therefore, his application can only be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. 7 8 In the result, Criminal Application No. 1437 of 2010 is partly allowed to the extent of applicant no.8 Kailas Khandu Renge and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant no.8 in connection with C.R. No. I-41 of 2010, registered at Kallam police station, District Nanded, he be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount, on the following conditions. (i) Applicant no.8 shall attend the concerned police station as and when required on written intimation till filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate in the investigation. (ii) Applicant no.8 shall not tamper with evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly or indirectly. 9 Needless to state that the aforesaid order to the extent of applicant no. 8 shall be in force till filing of charge sheet. 10 However, said Criminal Application No. 1437 of 2010 in respect of applicant nos. 1 to 7 stands rejected. 11 Criminal Application Nos. 1435 of 2010 preferred by applicant nos. 1 to 4, as well as Criminal Application No. 1438 of 2010 preferred by the sole applicant also stand rejected. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1435.10 8