(1) Cri. Application No. 4293 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4293 of 2011 1. Chandrabhaga Bhanudas Jadhav, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Household. 2. Uttam Bhaurao Jadhav, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Pensioner. 3. Sunil Uttam Jadhav, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Labour. 4. Sau. Sharda Uttam Jadhav, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Labour. All R/o. Jadhav Mala, Burudgaon Road, Ahmednagar. .. Applicants. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Superintendent of Police, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Cri. Application No. 4293 of 2011 Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate, for the applicants. Smt. R.K. Ladda, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 19TH OCTOBER 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 the applicant nos.1 to 4, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. M-5/2011, registered at Nagar Taluka Police Station, Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 427, 504 and 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, Bhimrao s/o. Sonaji Jadhav, on 20-6-2011, against the applicants (3) Cri. Application No. 4293 of 2011 herein and other co-accused persons. It appears that the quarrel took place between the applicants and the complainant on the count of lane adjacent to the house of the complainant on 24th March 2011, at about 2.30 p.m., and the applicants herein and other co-accused persons allegedly trespassed into the house of the complainant and dragged him outside the house, and abused him, and the applicant nos.2 and 3 allegedly assaulted on the head of the complainant by the piece of brick, whereas applicant nos.1 and 4 assaulted the complainant on his back by the piece of brick, as well as, applicants gave threats to the complainant, and further, when complainant's son, Ashok, intervened and came to relieve the complainant, he also was assaulted by the applicants by leg kicks and fist blows, but the complainant's son relieved the complainant, thereafter, the applicants and other co-accused threatened the complainant and his son, that if the complainant and his son indulge in such activity again, then the applicants and other co-accused would kill them, and thereafter, the complainant was removed to the hospital by his son for medical treatment. 4. Apparently, there are general and omnibus allegations against the applicant nos.1 and 4, that they assaulted the complainant on his back by piece of brick. Moreover, as regards applicant nos.2 and 3, it is reflected in the FIR, that they assaulted the complainant on his head by piece of brick. On (4) Cri. Application No. 4293 of 2011 perusal of the injury certificate of the said complainant Bhimrao, it appears that he has sustained blunt trauma over head and lower back, and not beyond that, and the said injury is simple injury. Moreover, it is also mentioned that X-Ray of skull and also X- Ray of spine was taken, but no evidence of fracture was noted and the patient was given treatment at O.P.D. Besides, nothing is to be recovered from the applicant nos.1 to 4. Moreover, although the incident occurred on 24th March 2011, it appears that the FIR came to be lodged on 20th June 2011. True it is, that the explanation is tried to be given in the contents of the FIR for the said delay, which can be assessed and analyzed at appropriate stage. Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that Sharda i.e. wife of applicant no.2, has also lodged Non-cognizable offence bearing registration No. 108/2011, immediately, on the date of the incident i.e. 24th March 2011, against the complainant and others. 5. Having comprehensive view of the matter, and considering the accusations made against the applicants, and nature and gravity thereof, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicants for further progress in the investigation, and therefore, the interim anticipatory bail granted to applicant nos.1 and 4, deserves to be made absolute, and the applicant nos.2 and 3 also deserve grant of bail, but on certain (5) Cri. Application No. 4293 of 2011 conditions. 6. In the result, Criminal Application is allowed, and interim anticipatory bail granted to applicant no.1, Chandrabhaga Bhanudas Jadhav, and applicant no.4, Sharda Uttam Jadhav, stands confirmed on the conditions mentioned herein below. Moreover, present Criminal Application in respect of applicant no.2, Uttam Bhaurao Jadhav, and applicant no.3, Sunil Uttam Jadhav, is also allowed, and it is directed that in the event of their arrest, in connection with Crime No. M-5/2011, registered at Nagar Taluka Police Station, Ahmednagar, 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 the conditions mentioned herein below : (i) Applicant nos.1 to 4, namely, Chandrabhaga, Uttam, Sunil and Sharda, respectively, shall give attendance before the concerned investigator, once in a week i.e. on every Monday, between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet, and shall cooperate in the investigation. (ii) Applicant nos.1 to 4, namely, Chandrabhaga, Uttam, Sunil and Sharda, respectively, shall not influence upon prosecution witnesses and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any (6) Cri. Application No. 4293 of 2011 manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly. 7. Present Criminal Application is 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/ka4293