1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.923 OF 2010 1. Suresh Narayan Vadar, Age-31 years, Occu-Labour work, 2. Ashok Narayan Vadar, Age-43 years, Occu-Labour work, 3. Santosh Narayan Vadar, Age-32 years, Occu-Labour work, 4. Sitaram Narayan Vadar, Age-27 years, Occu-Labour work, 5. Devidas Madukar Vadar, Age-23 years, Occu-Labour work, All R/o.Mamache Mohinde, Tal.Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Mr.S.S.Patil, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 11/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this court for their release on bail in connection with CR No.12/2010, 2 registered in Shahada Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 of The IPC, in which the applicant no.1 to applicant no.3 were arrested on 04/02/2010 while the remaining two applicants were arrested on 06/02/2010, and since then in custody. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Bapu Damu about the incident took place on 03/02/2010, around 7.00 p.m. The quarrel took place between the applicants and others on the ground that the pigs of these applicants caused damaged to the crops in the field of complainant and his family. There is an allegation that while complainant was proceeding towards his residential premises after purchase of mutton, he was surrounded by the applicants and others, total 11 persons, having long sticks in their hand and the quarrel took place on the ground that the complainant and his family members questioned these applicants and others on the point of damage to their crops. There is an allegations against Ashok, Santosh, Suresh and Gulab that they hit on the head of complainant and due to that he sustained head injury. There are further allegations that applicant no.4 Sitaram caught hold the father of complainant and applicant no.2 Ashok assaulted on his head with long stick in his hand. Due to that father 3 of complainant also sustained serious injuries. During that process, when brother of complainant Vishwas came there to intervene the complainant and his father, he was also assaulted by the applicants. According to counsel for applicants, as the applicants are behind bars for more than 30 days, the material investigation is over. The complainant and his brother were discharged from the hospital after primary treatment, hence their injuries can not be treated as grevious injuries. The remaining 6 persons who were arrayed as an accused, were already released on bail by the Court of Sessions. Hence on the ground of parity, these applicants also claimed bail. 4. The application is opposed by the learned APP. According to learned APP, considering the nature of injuries sustained to the father of complainant and those assailants who were became bold because of presence of remaining applicants, their application for bail to be refused as the investigation is still in progress. 5. Considering the papers of investigation, particularly the statement of complainant, as to how the incident is occurred, it can not be said that, it is a pre-plan attack. But at the same time, the nature of injuries at the individual credit of these applicants require a scrutiny. It is not disputed that the complainant and his brother Vishwas, after primarily treated, were discharged from the hospital on the same day. In the premise, the injuries sustained by them can not termed as grevious, causing death or threat to their life, but so far as the injuries caused to the father of complainant, it can not be 4 termed on the same ground, as he is seriously injured and under treatment. In the premise, out of 5 applicants, the role played by applicant no.2 Ashok and applicant no.4 Sitaram is can not be termed at par with remaining applicants as well as those who are released on bail on the ground of parity. Considering the analysis of the injuries as well as the individual contribution of the applicants, even though the investigation is in progress, the application require following order : O R D E R 1. Application is partly allowed. 2. Application in respect of applicant no.1 Suresh, applicant no.3 Santosh and applicant no.5 Devidas is hereby allowed. They be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing the PR bond in the like amount. 3. Application in respect of applicant no.2 Ashok and applicant no.4 Sitaram is hereby rejected. It is hereby made clear that these observations are on the basis of papers of investigation produced for my perusal and the learned Sessions Court not to influence with these observations, in case applicant no.2 Ashok and applicant no.4 Sitaram moved an application for bail after completion of investigation, i.e. after filing of the charge sheet. 4. Application stands disposed of in above terms. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR 2010/cri.appl.923-10