1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1937 OF 2010 Imtiyaj Mahammad Hajari and others .. Applicants Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Shri M. C. Sayyed, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri D. R. Korde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2061 OF 2010 Anil Kailas Gavit .. Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri D. R. Korde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri M. C. Sayyed, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 9. 2 CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 04TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL ORDER : 01. This is second bail application for anticipatory bail after rejection of their first bail application U/Sec. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Sessions Court by its order dated 06.05.2010. The complainant in the present crime is present. Complainant and his group was enlarged on bail after their bail application came to be allowed. The members of another group are the applicants before the Court. They are also present. The investigating officer is also present. In brief, he narrated the incident. 02. It is an incident where group of two communities have been involved and there was use of weapons by both the sides. The nature of weapons was described as swords and knifes. The incident took place at Misarwadi. It is also stated that the weapons used in the grime have not been recovered. There is difficulty in recovery because of pendency of anticipatory bail applications of both the sides. 3 03. The complainant in the present crime is appearing with his advocate and opposing present application. It seems that groups are still possessing animosity and this is the difficulty for the investigating agency while investigation. Though, complainant's group is granted bail so far still they are bound to cooperate the investigating agency as and when required, especially when the police is investigating into their complaint pursuant to the FIR lodged against the present applicants. Considering serious nature of the offence disturbing the village peace and considering fair opportunity to be given to the investigating agency no more time should be allowed so that evidence would fade. 04. The applicants have failed to make out case for anticipatory bail here also. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. In view of rejection of the anticipatory bail application for the reasons recorded above, the applicants/accused undertakes to surrender before the police on Monday i. e. 07.06.2010 at 8.00 a. m. Failing to that they are subject to legal process. 05. The complainant in the present crime though has put in his objection to the bail application, undertakes that they will 4 maintain peace and cooperate with the investigating agency. They will not take undue advantage of the rejection of the anticipatory bail application of the present applicants. They also undertakes that they will not misuse their bail for giving threats to the applicants, the rival group. 06. Learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 2061/2010 fairly not pressed the criminal application. The Criminal Application No. 2061/2010 is dismissed as not pressed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, ] VACATION JUDGE bsb/June 10