1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [ABA] No. 222 of 2011 Sou. Savitrabai Ashok Pandit Vs. State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the State/respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATE : 12 th JULY, 2011. Heard. Applicant-Savitrabai, who is arrayed as accused in Crime No. 23/2011, registered with Police Station Khandala, District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 109, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. The complainant and accused reside in village Shembadpipri, Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal. In the month of May, 2011, particularly in the night time, the stones were being pelted on the houses of residents. The complainant-Ranjana and her son viz. Vickey were being blamed for such incident. On 26/05/2011, at about 8:00 p.m to 9:00 p.m., there was dispute amongst Ananda, Uttam, Subhash and Vinod (brother of the injured). Injured Vickey was slapped by Ananda, Uttam and 2 Subhash. At that time the present applicant was instigating those persons to break the hands and legs of Vickey. In the night at 10:30 p.m., Dhammapal, who is the son of present applicant, entered the house of Vickey and assaulted him with scythe. Application for grant of anticipatory bail filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, was rejected by him vide order dated 09/06/2011 on the ground that on the instigation of the applicant, her son entered the house of complainant-Ranjana and seriously injured Vickey with deadly weapons. The case-diary is perused. The statement of witnesses show that applicant is the main abettor of the quarrel. She called her son Dhammapal and instigated him to assault Vickey. The surrounding circumstances also point out that Dhammapal was not initially involved in the quarrel. When the incident of beating took place out of the house, at that time the applicant declared that she would call her son and ask him to break the hands and legs of Vickey. She had also declared that she would take care of the expenditure. The investigation is going on. In the reply filed by learned APP, it is stated that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 694, and 3 contended that arrest of the accused is unnecessary. Perusal of the case-diary points out that the applicant played active role in commission of the offence. As many as five injuries in the nature of incised wounds were noticed on the person of the victim with fracture of right humerus. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the role played by the applicant in commission of offence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail by using discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Application is rejected. JUDGE *Sdw