1 66.11-aba bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.66 OF 2011 Mohammed Umar Azimullah Quresh & Anr. ..Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Rahul Arote i/b. Mr.Amit Munde for Applicants. Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : MARCH 14, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard rival submissions of the parties for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicants apprehending their arrest in the matter of C.R.No.577 of 2010 registered with the Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 143,144,145,147,148,149 r.w. Sections 353, 332 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. An incident of a sort of rioting had occurred on 25th December, 2010 in the afternoon. The dispute was apparently between two rival groups on account of possession of one industrial gala situated in the locality. Apparently, according present applicant No.1, he had purchased the said gala from the member of the other side, however, allowed the said original owner to continue with his business in the said gala. Thereafter, there were certain other litigations and allegations of theft against the present applicant by other side members. Apparently another anticipatory bail application was granted as reported by the present Advocate. 3. Regarding the incident in the present case, the police party appeared on the spot after getting information regarding riot like situation created by 10-20 2 66.11-aba persons from one party from the present applicant and 30-40 people from the group of other side. Though the directions were given for the said people to disperse and maintain peace, there was assault on the police officials and one Police Officer was assaulted on his head above the left eye by means of iron rod, and as the mob was un-rully and beyond control, other police vehicles were called and with the help of police about 19 persons from both sides were arrested and detained. Apparently four women, relatives of the present applicant were also arrested. 4. As the position stands today, the said arrested peoples were granted bail. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that considering the above circumstances and considering that there was no clear-cut understanding from FIR as the present applicant being one of the members of such unlawful assembly and committed in fact an offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, he may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. As against the above, the learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the injury sustained by the Police Officer was of rather a grievous nature and in fact an iron rod was used to assault the Police Officer. It is further submitted that only 19 persons from both the sides came to be arrested from the spot. She further submitted that it is not a case in which a discretionary relief of pre-arrest can be granted. Considering the above factual position and considering the apparent attempt of the present applicant to defy the orders of the Police Officer and in fact the assault on the police officer while the Police Machinery was taking action to maintain law and order, such type of discretionary relief of pre-arrest can not be granted to the present applicant. Hence the order. ORDER The present application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)