..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1897 OF 2008 1. Bhaurao Nivrutti Mundfane, 2. Vijay Manik Mundfane, & 3. Santosh Shivaji Kadam. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in C.R.No.85 of 2008 of Akluj Police Station, Kolhapur. The said case is under Sections 3(i)(x), 3(2)(iv), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 7(i)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and 135 of Bombay Police Act and Sections 436, 324, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. ..(2).. 3. It is the case of the complainant that there were property disputes between the complainant and the accused persons. On 17.5.2008 at about 9:00 a.m. the present applicants assaulted the complainant by means of bamboo sticks. The complainant has stated that all the applicants abused him by referring to his caste. Thereafter, the complainant has stated that the accused persons set fire to the house of Vithal Waghmare who is the uncle of the complainant. 4. As far as setting fire to the house of Vithal Waghmare is concerned, Vithal Waghmare has stated that he has no grievance against any of the accused persons in respect f his house catching fire. As far as the accused persons abusing the complainant referring to his caste is concerned, the learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that the complainant has made only general and vague statements that all the accused persons abused him by referring to his caste and the complainant has not specifically stated as to which accused abused him by referring to his caste. The learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision in the case of ..(3).. Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Administration) Administration) Administration) reported in 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 2002 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 41 JOURNAL 41 JOURNAL 41 In the said case, it was observed that there must be specific accusation alleged against each of the accused and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be pressed into service. Omnibus statement that all the accused persons uttered allegedly humiliating word may not be enough. In the said case a there was no specific accusation against each of the accused, bail came to be granted. 5. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 6. The applicants - Bhaurao Nivrutti Mundfane, Vijay Manik Mundfane and Santosh Shivaji Kadam to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant shall report to Akluj Police Station once in a fortnight, till conclusion of the trial. 7. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. ..(4).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)