(1) Cri. Application No. 3862 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3862 of 2011 1. Sitaram Manchu Rathod, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bhatsawangi (Tanda), Taluka & District : Hingoli. 2. Parasran s/o. Meram Rathod, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. As above. 3. Namdeo s/o. Sitaram Rathod, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. As above. 4. Manik s/o. Kalanu Rathod, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. As above. 5. Ramchandra s/o. Dharma Ade, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Applicants R/o. As above. (Original accused) versus (2) Cri. Application No. 3862 of 2011 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Basamba, Taluka & Dist. : Hingoli. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. P.S. Agrawal, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, and heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant nos.1 to 5 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 67/2011, registered at Police Station, Basamba (Taluka & District : Hingoli), for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 336, 337, 324, 294, 323, 504 and (3) Cri. Application No. 3862 of 2011 506 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Govardhan Devsing Chavan, on 5-8-2011 in respect of occurrence of the incident on 3-8-2011 at about 10 a.m. 4. At the outset, the name of applicant no.1, namely, Sitaram s/o. Manchu Rathod, has not been reflected anywhere in the FIR and no role has been attributed to him during the occurrence of incident, and therefore, there is no question of grant of his application, and hence, his application deserves to be rejected. 5. As regards other applicants i.e. applicant nos.2 to 5, it appears that names of said applicants have been reflected in the FIR and specific overt acts during the occurrence of the incident have been attributed therein, to applicant no.2 Parasran and applicant no.3 Namdeo, whereas although names of applicant no. 4 Manik and applicant no.5 Ramchandra have been disclosed in the FIR, no overt act has been attributed to them during occurrence of the incident, except giving abuses and threats. Besides, the injury certificate of Ranjana d/o. complainant Govardhan, discloses that she sustained grievous injury on the (4) Cri. Application No. 3862 of 2011 parito occipital area during occurrence of the incident, and Sections 147 to 149 of I.P.C. have been applied in the instant case, and therefore, application to the extent of applicant no.2 Parasran and applicant no.3 Namdeo cannot be granted since custodial interrogation of the said applicants would be required for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective. However, considering the role of lesser degree of applicant no.4 Manik and applicant no.5 Ramchandra during occurrence of the incident, their application for grant of anticipatory bail deserves to be granted. 6. In the result, present Criminal Application is partly allowed to the extent of applicant no.4 Manik s/o. Kalanu Rathod, and applicant no.5 Ramchandra s/o. Dharma Ade, and it is directed that in the event of their arrest, in connection with Crime No. 67/2011, registered at Police Station, Basamba (Taluka & District : Hingoli), they be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-, each, with one surety in the like amount by each of them, on following conditions : (i) Applicant no.4 Manik and applicant no.5 Ramchandra shall give attendance before the concerned investigator twice in a week i.e. on every Monday and Thursday, between 04.00 p.m. to 07.00 (5) Cri. Application No. 3862 of 2011 p.m., till filing of charge sheet, and shall cooperate in the investigation, and (ii) Applicant no.4 Manik and applicant no.5 Ramchandra shall not influence upon witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly. 7. However, present Criminal Application in respect of applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 viz. Sitaram Manchu Rathod, Parasran s/o. Meram Rathod, and Namdeo s/o. Sitaram Rathod, respectively, stands dismissed, and present Application stands disposed of finally. 8. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3862