FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CRIMINAL APPLN/4091/2011 Sahebrao Genaji Sonwane and others versus The State of Maharashtra/ Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr.K.D.Bade Patil APP for Respondent(s): Mrs R.K.Ladda. ... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Dated: October 04, 2011 ... 1. Perused investigation papers, which were made available for the inspection purpose, as well as heard learned respective counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant nos. 1 to 4, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under crime No.I-348/2011, registered with Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 (1) 5, 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act). 3. It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by complainant namely Santosh Mhatardeo Petare on 29.8.2011. On perusal of the contents of the said complaint, it appears that names of the applicant nos. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders 1 to 4 have been reflected therein, who were present at the place of incident and during the occurrence of the incident at 6.30 p.m.on 28.8.2011. Moreover, there are specific allegations against the applicant nos. 1 to 4 that they became wild and rushed on the person of the complainant and made utterances that “Mangatya Far Majalas Kay ? Dhedpata Tumhi Halkya Jatiche Ahat, Tumhi Mangate Far Majale Ahat.” and humiliated the complainant on his caste, and apparently said utterances were made by the applicants at the public place and they assaulted the complainant by leg kicks and fist blows. It is also alleged in the said complaint that applicant No.3 Rajendra Sonwane assaulted Mahatardev Gite on his head by stick. Moreover, applicant No.1 Sahebrao Sonwane also assaulted him on his head by stone and gave threats to kill to others. The injury certificate was not made available for the inspection purpose and it is stated in the report that Investigating Officer made demand to concerned Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Pathardi repeatedly but the said certificates were not issued to I.O. by him 4. Apart from that, there are eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident and their statements have been recorded during the course of the investigation, which are apparently in tune with the contents of the complaint. Moreover, allegations made against the applicants in respect FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders of the offence under section 7 (2) 5, 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) are serious. Besides, weapons allegedly used during the occurrence of the incident such as stick and stone are yet to be recovered. The investigation is under progress and same has not been completed, so far. Moreover, the applicants were not available for investigation purpose and therefore, further investigation could not be proceeded with. 5. Moreover, other aspect cannot be ignored that Ashok Saheb Sonwane has also filed counter complaint under Crime No.I-349/2011 against the brothers and father and same is also pending. 6. Having comprehensive view of the matter and considering the accusations made against the applicants herein and nature and gravity thereof, there is primafacie case against the applicants and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is imperative for the further progress in the investigation in proper perspective. Hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, present application lacks merit and therefore, stands dismissed and disposed of finally. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) aaa/- ***