ssp 1 appln3191.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3191 OF 2010 Anil Ramchandra Pawar .. Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Aniket Nikam for the Applicant Ms A.S.Pai, A.P.P for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : AUGUST 5TH, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R.50 of 2010 registered with Pandharpur Town police station, District Solapur. 2 The incident occurred on the night of 4th April 2010. The F.I.R was immediately lodged on 5th April 2010 in the early hours at 3.13 a.m. by one of the injured who was at hospital taking treatment because of the injuries sustained in assault. Certain facts which are material for decision of the present application for anticipatory bail can be narrated as under : 3 There was rather sort of rivalry between the complainant, his other friends including the deceased on one side and the present applicant and other co-accused on the other side. Earlier on that night of 4th April 2010, there was some altercation and exchange of abuse. When the complainant, deceased and their one more friend ssp 2 appln3191.sxw by name Amol were riding a motor cycle after attending some marriage when all the three coming back near Sargam Chowk at about 11.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. they were assaulted by the co-accused including the main accused Sandip. Allegedly, the main accused hit the first informant who was driving the motor cycle as such the motor cycle fell down. After motor cycle fell down the accused persons gathered there and started assaulting the complainant and deceased. Accused persons were armed with weapons like sword sticks, wooden logs and iron bars etc. During the said incident, after the motor cycle fell down, one companion of the complainant by name Amol ran away from the spot in order to save his life. However, the complainant and his another friend i.e. victim were assaulted. Thereafter, they were taken to some other place and again assaulted near Chandrabhaga S.T.Stand. After about 12 midnight, the complainant was taken for medical treatment at Cottage Hospital and thereafter taken for immediate treatment to Kalyan Hospital at Pandharpur. The friend of the complainant, one Vinayak Kamble was declared as dead on the admission in the hospital. The first information report was lodged at the early hours on 5th April 2010 as mentioned above. In the said FIR there is no mention regarding the presence of the applicants. However, immediately after lodging of the FIR on the same day, a supplementary statement was recorded by the police wherein he submitted that earlier due to some confusion due to some situation that he has already underdone deadly attack and was under treatment, he could not give all the particulars and as such subsequently, he gave a statement in which he took the name of the present applicant as the person present on the spot and armed with sword-stick. Apart from the said supplementary statement of the first informant, ssp 3 appln3191.sxw there are other three witnesses viz. Amol, Vikas and Rahul who also stated that the present applicant is the person present on the spot when rider on the motor cycle the complainant was assaulted. Same role is given to the applicant as the person present along with other co- accused and holding a sword-stick. The other co-accused are already arrested and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet is already filed. The present applicant apparently evading arrest as now he has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Earlier, he applied before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur for similar relief. However, that application was rejected on 15th May 2010. 4 There is argument by the learned Advocate for the applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant strongly submitted that in the FIR there is no name of the first applicant and as the supplementary statement is mentioning his name, is the indication that there is sort of concoction of story to link the applicant with the offence. Secondly, it is argued that no specific role is assigned to the present applicant so far as actually taking part in the offence. Thirdly, it is argued that he all along was not arrested by the police though charge sheet is filed. Specifically, there are no prayers by the investigating agency for additional investigation as per the provisions of section 173 sub section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. 5 Considering the contents of the FIR and the manner in which the assault was inflicted on the present applicant and mainly on the deceased Vinayak and the nature of the injuries under which the present applicant was removed to the hospital for medical treatment, at ssp 4 appln3191.sxw this juncture it cannot be accepted that it is a concoction of story when immediately after the lodging of the FIR on the same day there is supplimentary statement recorded in which role is assigned to the present applicant as the person armed with the Gupti when the complainant was hit by the main accused and all other accused started assault. Apart from the first informant there are three witnesses including one Amol who was a pillion rider along with the applicant on the fateful night. However, he ran away from the spot in order to save his life prior to that he had noticed the presence of the present applicant armed with his sword stick. 6 Considering the matter and the role assigned to the present applicant, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to grant discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail to the present applicant. Hence order : . Criminal Application no.3191 of 2010 stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)