1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4271 OF 2009 Manik S/o.Goroba Sartape and others APPLICANTS VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.A.S.Bayas, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 17/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the present applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in the event of arrest in CR No.124/2009, registered in Nilanga Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 436, 504 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants, followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out in the complaint lodged against these applicants as well as the complaint lodged by these applicants. The complaint lodged by these applicants is numbered as CR No.123/2009, which was registered in Nilanga Police station on 19/10/2009, at about 8.00 p.m. As against this, the bail application is moved by the present applicants in connection with CR No. 2 124/2009 which is registered against these applicants but was registered at early hours of 20/10/2009 i.e. 1.15 a.m. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned APP took me through both the complaints lodged against the applicant as well as lodged by these applicants. According to learned counsel appearing for the applicants, when these applicants alongwith others were returning from the hospital after medical treatment was given to one Gajanan Sartape, who was assaulted by the complainant party in this application in the evening at about 5.00 p.m., on the count that there was dispute about one lane in the agricultural field which are adjacent to each other of the applicant party as well as the complainant party, the Gajanan Sartape was assaulted by this complainant party. When they were returning after lodging the complaint in Nilanga Police Station, according to these applicants, their jeep was stopped by the complainant party and they were assaulted wherein they were seviourly injured. When they went to police station to lodge the complaint, according to learned counsel for applicant, the concerned police officers, who were present in the police station, refused to take cognizance of the complaint in absence of any medical certificate brought by these applicants, and their associates. Hence initially they went to the hospital where they took treatment and thereafter the complaint came to be lodged. At this stage only I affraid to accept these submissions as these facts do not find any place in the complaint lodged by these applicants vide CR No.123/2009. It is the next submission across the bar on behalf of the applicants that considering the facts mentioned in the complaint 3 lodged by one Lahu, who is the complainant in CR No.124/2009, no specific role is attributed towards these applicants as they have assaulted either the complainant Lahu in CR No.124/2009 or his family members and if it is so, on the count of vague allegations, these applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 3. According to learned counsel for applicants, so far as the house of complainant was set on fire can not be believed as the house is a constructed premises, which can not be set on fire and this is also the way and false allegations and hence they are entitled for bail. 4. While opposing the bail application, it is urged on behalf of learned APP appearing for State that while considering the bail, not only the facts stated in the complaint, but the investigation till carried out and the evidence which is collected against these applicants required to be considered. No doubt, even though there are counter complaints, but in the cases of counter complaints, it is necessary while considering the bail application to consider that which party is a aggressive party and likely to create problem about law and order. 5. Considering these submissions across the bar, it can not be disputed that counter complaints are lodged by these applicants as well as against these applicants for which CR No.123/2009 and 124/2009 were registered in Nilanga Police Station. From the facts stated in both these complaints, it is clear that the incident occurred 4 in front of house of complainant in CR No.124/2009. It is not only the allegation that the applicants party and their associates assaulted the complainant and his family members, but it is to be noted that after the assault at the hands of these applicants, the complainant party in CR No.124/2009 took shelter inside their house and bolted the house from inside. Thereafter this applicant party, taking advantage of the fodder which is outside the residential premises of the complainant party, set that fodder on fire with an intention that the inmates inside the house may burn alive, and this is to be considered as one of the ingredient about an attempt to murder as attributed u/s. 307 of IPC. Considering the act of these applicants and their associates assaulting the complainant party with weapons in their hand, but there is an attempt of live burning of the complainant and his family members in their residential premises at the hands of these applicants and their associates, which fact can be seen from the panchnama of premises where the incident occurred, In the premise, considering all these aspects, and considering that the investigation is still in progress, application sans any merit, hence rejected. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are on the basis of papers of investigation placed in my hand. Learned Sessions Judge, before whom the trial against these applicants is pending, not to influence with these observations. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.4271-09