1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1564 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1564 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1564 OF 2009 1. Aslam Sorathia, 2. Brijesh Yadav, .. Applicants. Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr Shirish Gupte, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr Prakash Naik, for the applicants. Mrs P.P.Shinde, APP, for the respondent-State. Mr S.M.Mirajkar, for the original complainant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 16.04.2009. DATED : 16.04.2009. DATED : 16.04.2009. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr Shirish Gupte, learned senior counsel for the applicants, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the original complainant. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.32/2009 of Nalasopara police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicants for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 147,148,149, 302, 323 r/w section 120-B of the IPC, 3(25)(27) of the Arms Act and 3(2)(5) of the S.C.& S.T.Prevention of Atrocities Act. 3. Insofar as the offence under the Atrocities Act is concerned, on 2.4.2009 the following order was passed. 2 2 2 "3. It is submitted that neither in the complaint nor in the application any allegation is made about an offence being committed under the Atrocities Act and merely because the deceased was from scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, the Sessions Court has observed that section 18 of the Atrocities Act is complied and the application for anticipatory bail would not be maintainable. 4. Perusal of the FIR indicates that there is no violation of provisions of the Atrocities Act. Even in the remand application also no such allegation has been made. Prima facie, therefore, the provisions of the Atrocities Act would not apply. In view of the ratio laid down in Ramchandra Govindrao Watkar’s case, therefore, application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. 5. Even otherwise, the only material on record is the car which was allegedly used in the commission of the said offence." Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I agree with the observations made by V.M.Kanade, J.insofar as the allegations attracting the provisions of the Atrocities Act are concerned. In my opinion, no offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act is disclosed against the applicants. 4. Mr Gupte, learned senior counsel for the applicants, at the outset, invited my attention to an FIR, the Remand Application dated 9.2.2009,and the reply affidavit filed by the State, to contend that 3 3 3 insofar as the present applicants are concerned they were not physically present when the alleged incident occurred and their names appeared for the first time in the Remand Application dated 9.2.2009. He further submitted that apart from the allegation against applicant no.1 that the vehicle, which was allegedly used for committing the offence, belongs to him there is no other material against applicant no.1 to connect him with the alleged offence. He then submitted that insofar as applicant no.2 is concerned, there is absolutely no material against him to connect with the alleged offence except the statement of one Santosh Dhule, the brother of the deceased Pravin-Dhule. I have perused the entire material placed before the Court. It appears that the main accused-Sikandar Shaikh and the deceased-Pravin had some dispute, and in 2005 there was an incident of assault over which, it is alleged, Sikandar Shaikh had grudge against the deceased-Prvain Dhule. Santosh Dhule, in his statement, has stated that applicant nos 1 and 2 were working with Sikandar Shaikh and they were his friends and, therefore they also had grudge against the deceased-Pravin Dhule. Except the statement of Santosh Dhule, on the basis of which the applicants are treated as conspirators by the prosecution, there 4 4 4 is no other material against them. Merely because the vehicle, which was allegedly used, belongs to applicant no.1, does not mean that applicant no.1 was also party to the conspiracy. In my opinion, having regard to the allegations against the applicants, their custody for interrogation would not be necessary, and they are entitled to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the instant crime. Hence, the following order. . In the event of their arrest, both the applicant nos 1 and 2 be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount subject to the conditions as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, they are directed to report to the concerned police station every alternate day between 10 am and 12 noon till 5.5.2009 and thereafter on every Saturday between 10 am and 11 am till filing of the chargesheet. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. 5 5 5 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)