1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2349 OF 2009 Rajendra Rajaram Tandel & ors ..Petitioner -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Shri.Vijay S Gharat, advocate for the applicants. Smt. A.A. Mane, APP for the state. CORAM: R. G. KETKAR J (Vacation Judge) DATED: 22nd May, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard Shri. Vijay Gharat, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt A. A. Mane, learned APP for the respondent State. The applicants are arraigned as accused in CR No.I-19/2009 registered at Vangaon police station, 2 District:Thane, for offences punishable under sections 326, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code (for short called as “I.P.Code.”). 2. Shri.Gharat, learned counsel for the applicants contended that there is delay of one day in registering the FIR. The applicants are innocent and are falsely implicated. There is no direct evidence and no material to show involvement complicity of the applicants. He further contended that perusal of FIR indicates that the alleged assault of axe was made by one Rajaram Ganu Tandel and not by the applicants. The applicant No.3 is suffering from heavy blood pressure and is about 57 years old. She is required regular medical assistance. If she is not enlarged on bail, it will have adverse effect on her health. 3. As against this, learned APP invited my attention to the FIR in CR I-19/2009 dated April 30, 2009, and submitted that the FIR indicates role played by the applicants herein. The applicants acted in common intention with Rajaram. There is involvement of the applicants in the commission of crime. After hearing 3 learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, in my view, this is not fit case for enlarging the applicants on anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in paragraph No.2 of the order considered the submissions advanced before him. Similar submissions have been advanced before me. I find no reason to take different view than that taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail. 5. In the result, there is no substance in the application and the same is dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J)