1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1395 of 2010 Sandip v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr M.P. Kariya, Adv for applicant Ms A.R. Taiwade, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 7.9.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 114/2010 registered with Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was barely present at the place of incident and he did not take part in it. He contends that role of the applicant is suspected only because he is District Organizer of Bhartiya Vidyarthi Sena, Chandrapur District. 3. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that role of the applicant in the incident of ghastly attack was active and he should not be given benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. There is prima facie material on record in the form of statement of injured Sandip Mahato pointing accusing finger towards the applicant inasmuch as it is borne out that it was the applicant 2 who inflicted 2/3 blows of knife on the abdomen of said Sandip Mahato and instigated his workers by saying “Maro Sale Ko”. There is merit in the contention of learned APP that applicant may tamper with the prosecution evidence if he is enlarged on anticipatory bail since he is an influential person. Looking to the serious accusations against the applicant, it is in the fitness of things to allow the investigating agency to reach to a logical conclusion and book all the offenders. At any rate, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Application lacks merit and it is accordingly rejected. Judge. joshi