{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3803 OF 2009 Maruti s/o Machindra Shinde & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.140/2009 registered with MIDC Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 307, 324, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149, 143 of the Indian Penal Code and 135 and 37 (1) (3) of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, carried out till today. {2} 3. This offence came to be registered with MIDC police station on the compliant of one Gopinath Muthe. It is alleged in the compliant that on 29th September 2009 at about 7.00 a.m. the complainant was carrying the students into his auto and while was on his way applicant No.1 accosted him as applicant No.1intended to carry the students. Some altercation took place between them and the complainant went away. Thereafter, when the complainant reached near Datta temple, the applicants along with 6 others accosted him and taken him to a locality known as Khamkar Wasti. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was assaulted by the said accused persons. The complainant has stated that the applicant No.1 was carrying knife and assaulted him with the same. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, it is alleged that he is associate of applicant No.1 and he has forcibly taken the complainant from Datta Mandir to Khamkar Wasti. 4. Considering the submissions and the facts disclosed in the compliant, it cannot be said that there is false implication of the applicants. Considering the nature of allegations, the applicants do not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as it prima facie appears that they had not only participated, but a specific role is attributed to them in the compliant. In the premise, no case is made out to use discretion u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. {3} 5. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. 6. It is clarified that these observations are prima facie observations based on the papers of investigation and the trial court shall not be influenced by the same while conducting the trial or while deciding application for regular bail. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3803-09 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3861 OF 2009 Ravindra Chimaji Shinde APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. At the request of learned counsel for applicant, S.O. to 01.12.2009. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3803-09