1appln-2820-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2820 of 2010 Salim Rajmohammad Shaikh & Anr ... Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. Mrs Sulbha Dhamale, for the Applicants. Mrs A.S.Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 7TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions at length today and also for some time on the last date on this anticipatory bail application preferred by both the applicants, apprehending their arrest in C.R.No.I-133/2010 registered with Bhadrakali Police Station,Nashik for the offence under Sections 307, 397 of I.P.C. and offence of rioting with deadly weapons. 2. Perusal of the F.I.R. reveals the names of both the applicants as the assailants and using sword for causing injuries to one of the eye-witnesses. It appears that on the trifle issue of censoring the boys playing on the road not to create a commotion near the medical dispensary, a sort of riot like situation was 2appln-2820-10 created by the applicants and others by assembling near the said medical dispensary and assaulting the complainant and his relatives including his aged father. Apparently, iron rods and swords were used by the co-accused. Role is attributed to the present applicants as to use of sword to assault brother of the complainant. 3. During the arguments, learned Advocate Mrs Dhamale for the applicants submitted that the co-accused have already been released on bail by the Trial Court. However, on this aspect attention of this Court is drawn by the learned A.P.P. for the State that the said co-accused were earlier arrested and were in custody for about a month and thereafter they were granted bail. Hence, the parity cannot be claimed by the present applicants, much less for the prayer of anticipatory bail. 4. Considering the prima facie involvement, as names of the applicants appear in the F.I.R. and considering the seriousness of the allegations, it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant pre-arrest bail to the present applicants. Hence, the following order. ORDER (a) Criminal Application No. 2820/2010 stands rejected. (b) Needless to mention that in the event the Sessions Court, while dealing with the regular bail application of the present applicants, will not get influenced by the observations made in this order and shall deal with such application appropriately in accordance with law. (c) Application is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J) 3appln-2820-10