{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2977 OF 2010 Babasaheb Devidasrao Borde & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the applicants Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 29th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.122/2010 registered with Mantha police station for an offence punishable u/s 353, 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code with section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 3. This offence is registered on the basis of complaint {2} lodged by Dr.Suhas Jagtap, who, at the material time, was working as Medical Officer at Mantha. It is alleged that in the night of 18th July 2010 at about 9.30 p.m. when he was proceeding to the house of his friend, he was assaulted by the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants drawn my attention to the contents of the complaint itself. It is contended that though the complaint is accepted as it is, yet there is no abuse in the name of caste of the complainant by the applicants. Merely stating that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and hence he was assaulted, would not suffice to attract offence punishable under the Atrocities Act. Thus, this Court is in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants that the provisions of the Atrocities Act would not attract against the applicants. My attention is also drawn towards the further contents of the complaint, which demonstrate that at the relevant time, the complainant was proceeding to the house of his friend and he was not proceeding to attend his duty. Thus, from bare perusal of the complaint it is clear that at the material time, the complainant was not proceeding to perform his duty as a public servant and hence provisions of section 353 of the Indian Penal Code would also not be attracted. 5. Though it is alleged that due to assault the complainant sustained bleeding injuries on head, yet the same are {3} not corroborated by the medical certificate, which was issued after immediate examination of the complainant. Considering the facts disclosed in the complaint and though corroborated by the so called eye witnesses, they do not attract offence punishable under the Atrocities Act as well as offence of causing obstruction to a public servant in performing his official duty. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicant that prior to the lodging of the present offence, the first applicant had lodged a complaint before the Civil Surgeon, Jalna in respect irregularities committed by the complainant and 4 days thereafter, the present complaint is lodged. In the premise, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Thus, considering all these aspects, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail in exercise of discretion vested in this Court. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with CR No.122/2010 registered with Mantha police station, they be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigating officer. Application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2977-10