1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 890 of 2010 Parmeshwar Mahadev Patil & ors. ... Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.V.V.Purwant for the applicant. Mr.S.A. Shaikh APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 3rd March 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No. 126 of 2009 dated 21st December 2009 registered at Akkalkot North Police Station, District Solapur for an offence registered u/s.147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 427 of the IPC r/w section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. On 21st December 2009, two cross complaints were lodged, one on behalf of the applicants and another against them. Perusal of the cross complaints shows that there is on going dispute between the 2 family of the applicants and family of Rajshekhar Vale, Vijaykumar Vale and Nageshkumar Vale. According to the prosecution on account of the said quarrel, the applicants assaulted the family of Vale. Three persons from the family of Vale were injured. The injury certificate shows that one of the injuries suffered by Umesh Belle is a grievous injury. Some of the members from the applicants’ family were also injured and the injury certificate shows injuries suffered by applicant no.1 to be grievous while the injury suffered by others are simple. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that action of the applicants were in self defence and therefore they do not constitute an offence. Learned APP disputes this and submits that the applicants were the assailants and the injuries suffered by some of them were on account of a self defence by the members of the Vale family. The question, who was thee aggressor and who was the defender would require consideration at trial. The fact however remains that more than five persons took part in the assault on each side and there were injuries suffered by members of both the sides. The investigation is in progress. Until the investigation is completed, it would not be possible even for the police to determine who was the aggressor and who was the defender. For this purpose, custodial interrogation appears necessary. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not press the application on behalf of the applicant no.2 who has been arrested and granted bail post arrest. In my view, the case of applicant nos.3, 4 and 5 is similar to applicant no.2. Applicant no.2 is a lady so are the applicant nos.3, 4 and 5. Under proviso to section 437 they are entitled 3 to a special consideration. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant conditional pre-arrest bail to applicant nos.3, 4 and 5 while rejecting the application on behalf of applicant no.1. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R In the event applicant nos.3, 4 and 5 or any of them is arrested, each of them shall be released on bail on their executing P.R. Bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount. Application for bail by applicant no.1 is rejected. It is however clarified that all observations are only prima facie and if an application for bail is made by the applicant no.1 post arrest, learned Sessions Judge shall consider it on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)