1 ABA-995.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.995 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} Dwarkanath Laxman Patil & 2 Others .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri S.V. Marwadi for the Applicants. Ms M.R. Tidke, APP, for the State. Shri Vinayak Patil, PSI, Safala Police Station, present. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: DECEMBER 05, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by three persons who apprehend arrest in Crime No.I-84 of 2011 of Safala Police Station, Palghar, District Thane, registered on the complaint of Dr. Mangesh Baburao Patil. 2. The applicants themselves rely on a report bearing No.85 of 2011 filed by one Rakesh Ramesh Bhoir. This states that on 22-11-2011, in the afternoon, at the Gram Sabha, there was a dispute between the uncle of 2 ABA-995.11 Rakesh by name Yogesh Baburao Patil at which there was some assault. Thereafter, at 9:30 p.m. Rakesh, his uncle Prabhakar Bhoir, brothers Vinod and Pravin, mother Ramabai, Maruti, Sachin, Aatma, Itwari, etc., went to Ram Mandir for some bhajan and found that Ram Mandir was locked. Therefore, to take the keys they went to the house of Anil Baburao Patil, brother of the first informant in FIR No.84 of 2011. In fact Dr. Mangesh Baburao Patil in his report states that these persons came to his house at about 9:30 p.m. and thereafter assaulted him and his family members, including Anil Patil, from whom the applicants' party had come ostensibly to seek keys of Ram Mandir. It is thus clear that the applicants' party had gone to the house of the complainant at 9:30 p.m. ostensibly to ask for keys. If the persons wanted to perform some bhajan in Ram Mandir, it would have been enough to send one person to fetch the keys and the rest of them could have stayed near the Ram Mandir. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants states that everybody had not gone to the victim's house and the names of the applicants are not there in the FIR filed by Rakesh. The learned counsel states that no role is given to 3 ABA-995.11 applicant Nos.2 and 3 and the role attributed to Dwarkanath is that he assaulted one Pranita but that there is no injury. 4. The investigating officer PSI Vinayak Patil was present to assist the learned APP and he had flagged for my perusal medical certificate of Pranita dated 2-12-2011 from Dr. Koti's Maternity & Nursing Home. But I also stumbled upon another medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Safala in respect of the said Pranita and found that she had injuries. There were also medical certificates of Dr. Mangesh Patil and others and Dr. Mangesh Patil had suffered grievous hurt. 5. Considering the nature of the assault, particularly the fact that the applicants' party seems to have gone to the house of Dr. Mangesh Patil and then launched an attack, the applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. 6. The observations made in this order are made with respect to the present application only and the same shall not be taken into consideration while deciding applications for 4 ABA-995.11 bail of the applicants that may be filed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)