1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1833 of 2008 Dinesh Dadaji Chokhare Vs. State Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri R. P. Joshi Adv. for applicant. Shri Patel APP for State. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 12 th May, 2008. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant claims himself to be a leader of workers. There is a factory known as Gopani Iron Industries Private Limited. Workers of the said factory had gone on hunger strike for demands made by them to 2 the Management. It is alleged by the prosecution that present applicant used to instigate the workers who were on hunger strike. It is further alleged that on the date of the incident the present applicant instigated the workers and entered the factory and caused damage to the property of the factory and even tried to snatch the weapon of the Security Guard. Such a report was lodged by the Security Officer of the Company and upon that report an offence has been registered and applicant apprehends arrest. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties rejected the application holding that allegations were primafacie found against him and that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the 3 State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that allegations as made in the F. I. R. do not go to show that there was any overt act on the part of the applicant and that he had actually instigated any worker. He submitted that he had merely addressed the workers who were on strike and therefore this was a fit case where anticipatory bail should be granted. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the F. I. R. discloses the overt act on the part of the applicant and would show that applicant alone was specifically avoiding the arrest and all other workers were actually arrested and even released on bail. After having gone through the first information report I find that there are clear allegations in the F. I. R. that the applicant used to address the workers who were on strike and were sitting in front of the 4 Factory. It also discloses that on the date of the incident it was applicant who had instigated the workers to enter the premises. The F. I. R. discloses that many other workers who were actually working in the factory were assaulted. They suffered injuries and even the Security Guard had suffered injuries. Electric supply was disconnected and about 400 tonnes of raw iron was damaged. Damage was also caused to other premises. F. I. R. further shows that there was an instigation on the part of the applicant to the workers who had entered the premises. There is no substance in the contention that the applicant had merely addressed the workers and had not done anything which could be term as an overt act. It was next contended that offences are not of very serious nature and some of them are even bailable. The F. I. 5 R. discloses that offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 427, 452 have been registered. There are offences under Sections 393 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. F. I. R. does not go to show that accused applicant is totally innocent. On the other hand it shows that he had really created law and order problem as is observed by the learned Judge of the Sessions Court. Applicant, therefore, to my mind is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Application is rejected. JUDGE svk