IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4951 OF 2009 1. Ramesh Namdeo Jadhav 2. Rupesh Ramesh Jadhav ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ---- Shri Prakash Naik for Applicants Shri S.A. Shaikh -APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. ---- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the Learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the Applicants against the offences punishable under sections 307, 324, 452, 336, 427, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been registered at Kalyan Taluka Police Station, Dist. Thane. 3. It is alleged that the Applicants along with others entered the house of the Complainant by breaking open the door and, thereafter, assaulted the members of the Complainant's family with fist blows. However, the Accused Ganesh Jadhav had assaulted the Complainant's son by iron fighter on the abdomen of the son and thereby his spleen has been damaged. The other members of the Complainant's family were also assaulted by the Applicants. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Applicant No.2 is a police constable and that certificate has been given by the Police Head Quarters, Thane Rural stating that the Applicant No.2 was on duty on the said day. He further submitted that the incident happened on 2.9.2009 at 18.15 hours and the complaint was lodged on 3rd September, 2009 at 11 O'clock in the night. He, therefore, submitted that the name of the Applicant No.2 was falsely implicated. He further submitted that even the Sessions Court was allowed the application by stating that provisions of section 307 are not attracted, taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered by the victims in the said assault. He extraneously urge that the Applicants be released on bail since the custodial interrogation is not necessary and their names appears to have been falsely implicated. 5. It is not possible to accept this submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Applicants. In the FIR, the role played by both the Applicants and the other accused has been described in detail. It is alleged that the Applicants and other Accused broke open the wooden door of the Complainant's house and entered his house. They had not only committed criminal trespass but entered in the house. They had assaulted not only the male members but also the female members, who had tried to intervene and prevented the Applicants to assault the Complainant. In my view, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 6. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)