1 ABA-332-378-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 332 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 378 OF 2011 CRI. A.B.A. NO. 332 OF 2011 1. Rahul Ananda Wadkar ) 2. Jayshil Sures Hanbar ) 3. Jaydeep Shelararao Bagal ).. Applicants vs. State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent CRI. A.B.A. NO. 378 OF 2011 1. Mr. Sheetal Suresh Hanbar ) 2. Balaso @ Raiba Nanaso Bagal ) 3. Shri Suresh Dattu Hanbar ).. Applicants vs. State of Maharashtra Respndent Mr.M.S.Lagu,Advocate, for the applicants. Ms. P.P.Shinde,APP for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 27th September, 2011. P.C. 1. The applicants seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.13/2011 registered with Hupari Police Station, Ichalkaranji, on a report lodged by Annaso Patil for 2 ABA-332-378-11.sxw the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 427 of IPC. 2. As per the FIR, the panel of the complainant Annaso Patil was elected in the election of the local Co-op. Society. Thereafter, the accused persons armed with sticks, swords, etc. attacked the house of the complainant and caused damage to the property and also caused injuries to the complainant and other inmates of the house. Three motor-cycles were also damaged. It was alleged that the accused persons had taken away the gold chain, ring, etc. of the family members of the complainant. 3. According to the accused, about the same incident, a counter case has been registered against the complainant and his partymen. In the incident, some of the applicants were also injured. It is contended that because of the election dispute, a false case under Section 395 of IPC has been registered. 4. On 5.5.2011, this Court had granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants with direction to report at the Police Station on 12.5.2011 and to make themselves available to police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions from I.O., states that the applicants were not co-operating in investigation because they are protected 3 ABA-332-378-11.sxw by the anticipatory bail. However, the order dated 16.6.2011, shows that on that day, the Investigating Officer had made a statement before the Court that the accused persons were attending the police station as and when required. The learned APP states that the weapons which were allegedly used in the said incident have been recovered. In respect of the gold ornaments, which were allegedly stolen away the complainant has filed an affidavit before the I.O. that the said ornaments were found at their house. It means the offence under Sec. 395 of IPC was never committed. It appears that from both the sides some persons were injured in the incident. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicants does not appear to be necessary. 5. Therefore, ad-interim anticipatory bail granted on 5.5.2011 is hereby made absolute and both these Applications stand disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)