(1) CR.APP. 1376.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1376 OF 2009 Shahaji S/o Kushaba Maharnavar and ors. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Shripad Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicants Smt. R.R. Mane, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 2ND JULY, 2009 P.C.:- 1] The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail rather belatedly in crime no. 23 of 2007 of Karjat Police Station, Ahmednagar. The offences punishable under section 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 504, 506 IPC are alleged against the applicants and other accused. 2] The incident is described by the complainant in the FIR. The complainant stated that (2) CR.APP. 1376.2009 applicants and 10 others launched their assault on the complainant and his two companions on 1.2.2007 at about 3:00 pm. in the agricultural field of one of the accused Bhausaheb. Violence erupted soon and the other accused who were armed with weapons like sticks and axes launched their attack on the complainant party. It is said that the applicants were armed with stones and they pelted stones on the complainant’s party. The complainant and his two companions sustained injuries. The incident was reported on 2.2.2007. 3] It is rather surprising that the present applicants were not arrested in this case so far. Other accused were arrested and were released on bail. I am told that the chargesheet against the other accused is also filed and they are facing the Sessions case. I am not inclined to go into the question as to why the Investigation Officer did not arrest the applicants or whether they avoided arrest. I am also not considering as to whether the applicants had arrived at a compromise with the complainant party etc. In a case like this, where the accused showed no regard for law and order and at broad day-light they launched murderous attack, I am not inclined to grant them relief of anticipatory bail even though the incident took place long time back and apparently the investigation is over etc. It is now for the Investigation Officer to decide as (3) CR.APP. 1376.2009 to whether he should arrest the applicants for the purpose of custodial interrogation or otherwise. 4] Criminal Application stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/2july9/cr1376.09