(1) Cri. Application No. 3881 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3881 of 2011 1. Santosh s/o. Baban Badade, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Labour. 2. Eknath Pandurang Badade, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Labour. 3. Baban Pandurang Badade, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Labour. 4. Bhanudas Pandurang Badade, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Labour. 5. Sagar Rajaram Kusalkar, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Hanumanwadi, Sonai, Taluka : Newasa, District : Ahmednagar. 6. Adinath Baban Badade, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Labour. 7. Balasaheb Eknath Badade, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Labour. (2) Cri. Application No. 3881 of 2011 8. Raju Bhanudas Badade, Age : 21 years, Occupation : Labour. 9. Deepak Eknath Badade, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Labour. 10.Ganesh Maruti Avhad, Age : 19 years, Occupation : Education. Nos.1 to 4 & 6 to 10 All R/o. Wanjarwadi, Yashwantnagar, Sonai, Taluka : Newasa, District : Ahmednagar. .. Applicants. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. R.K. Temkar, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. D.R. Korde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.R. Adhav, Advocate, for original complainant. (3) Cri. Application No. 3881 of 2011 ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER 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. After hearing learned respective Counsel for the parties, extensively, learned Adv. Mr. R.K. Temkar, for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the present Application to the extent of applicant no.1, Santosh s/o. Baban Badade; applicant no.2, Eknath Pandurang Badade; applicant no. 6, Adinath Baban Badade; applicant no.8, Raju Bhanudas Badade; and applicant no.9, Deepak Eknath Badade. 3. In view of the said submission, present Criminal Application stands dismissed as withdrawn to the extent of applicant no.1, Santosh; applicant no.2, Eknath, applicant no.6, Adinath, applicant no.8, Raju; and applicant no.9, Deepak. 4. As regards other applicants i.e. applicant no.3, Baban (4) Cri. Application No. 3881 of 2011 s/o. Pandurang Badade; applicant no. 4, Bhanudas s/o. Pandurang Badade; applicant no. 5, Sagar s/o. Rajaram Kusalkar; applicant no.7 Balasaheb s/o. Eknath Badade; and applicant no.10, Ganesh s/o. Maruti Avhad, they have preferred the present Application seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. I-105/2011, registered at Sonai Police Station (Taluka : Newasa, District : Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code, and also under Sections 4 and 25 of Arms Act, and under Section 37(1)(3), read with Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. 5. It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Bhausaheb s/o. Macchindra Vairagar, on 28th July 2011, in respect of occurrence of the incident on the same day. It also appears that on 29th July 2011, Police Sub-Inspector of Sonai Police Station sent a communication to the concerned Magistrate, that the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, have been (5) Cri. Application No. 3881 of 2011 applied in the present C.R. However, apparently, contents of the said complaint are not in tune with the said added offences. 6. Apart from that, coming to the contents of the complaint in respect of occurrence of the incident, and apparently, although names of applicant nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 have been reflected therein, no overt act / specific role has been attributed to them during occurrence of the incident. Moreover, learned Counsel for the applicants also pointed out that the applicant no.1 herein, namely, Santosh s/o. Baban Badade, had lodged a cross complaint on 29th July 2011 under Crime No. 106/2011 against the complainant herein and other co-accused persons and the same is also pending. 7. Moreover, the injury certificates of the injured persons, namely, Bhausaheb Vairagar, Ashok Vairagar and Sachin Vairagar have been perused and it appears that the complainant Bhausaheb sustained grievous injury, but apparently, considering the contents of the complaint, the above referred applicant nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 do not appear to be responsible for causing the said injury. 8. Having comprehensive view of the matter, and considering accusations made against applicant nos.3, 4, 5, 7 and (6) Cri. Application No. 3881 of 2011 10, namely, Baban, Bhanudas, Sagar, Balasaheb and Ganesh, respectively, and nature and gravity thereof, it does not appear that custodial interrogation of the said applicants is necessary for further progress in the investigation, and hence, interim anticipatory bail granted to them by order dated 19th September 2011 deserves to be made absolute. 9. In the result, present Criminal Application is partly allowed to the extent of applicant no.3, Baban s/o. Pandurang Badade; applicant no. 4, Bhanudas s/o. Pandurang Badade; applicant no. 5, Sagar s/o. Rajaram Kusalkar; applicant no.7 Balasaheb s/o. Eknath Badade; and applicant no.10, Ganesh s/o. Maruti Avhad, and interim anticipatory bail granted in their favour on 19th September 2011 stands confirmed on the following conditions : (i) Applicant nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 viz. Baban, Bhanudas, Sagar, Balasaheb and Ganesh, respectively, shall give attendance before the concerned investigator, once in a week on every Monday, between 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., till filing of charge sheet, and shall cooperate in the investigation, and (ii) Applicant nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 viz. Baban, Bhanudas, Sagar, Balasaheb and Ganesh, respectively, shall not influence (7) Cri. Application No. 3881 of 2011 upon witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly. 10. However, Application in respect of applicant no.1, Santosh s/o. Baban Badade; applicant no.2, Eknath Pandurang Badade; applicant no.6, Adinath Baban Badade; applicant no.8, Raju Bhanudas Badade; and applicant no.9, Deepak Eknath Badade, stands dismissed as withdrawn, as aforesaid. 11. Present Criminal Application stands disposed of finally. 12. 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/3881ka