( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4011 OF 2010 Vishal Kanta Prashad & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS .... Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicants. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondents/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 12th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers which were made available during the course of hearing. 3. What appears from the relevant investigation papers and the copies of documents filed by the applicants is that there was a dispute regarding agricultural land bearing Survey No. 40, which the applicant No. 4 claims to have purchased. The ill-will between the parties was on account ( 2 ) of alienation of the said land by the previous owner. The applicant No. 4 filed FIR on the same day i.e. 15th September, 2010, alleging that the complainant and Dr. Govindsingh Rajput abused him on ground of his caste and threatened him that he and his family members will be done to death. It appears that the said FIR was registered at Sillod Police Station around 20.00 Hrs. for offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under section 504 and 506 of the I.P. Code vide crime No. II-19/2010. It further appears that thereafter, the counter FIR lodged by the complainant - Dr. Govindsingh Rajput was registered at 11.30 Hrs. on the same day. He alleged in the FIR that the applicants entered in his agricultural land in the relevant noon. He further alleged that the applicant No. 4 asked him as to why he had encroached over their land and thereafter, threatened him that he would be burried in the same land. He alleged that he was beaten up by means of kicks and fists blows by the applicant No. 4 whereas the others pounced on him. they had taken away his gold-ring and gold-chain. The FIR clearly shows that when the applicant No. 4 Jagdish attempted to strike a blow of iron rod on his head, the complainant immediately pushed himself away and missed the ( 3 ) blow. He alleged that otherwise he would have been done to death. The learned APP points out that injury certificate shows the fact that the complainant - Dr. Govindsing Rajput had received five (5) injuries on his person. It appears prima facie that the complainant himself is a medical practitioner and ordinarily, he would not have missed the fact about the nature of assault and resultant injuries caused to him, while filing of the FIR. It appears from the record that the complainant indulged in lodging complaints against some other persons also and his conduct is unfair. It further appears that the FIR rather exaggerated by adding certain allegations in order to aggravate the nature of offence alleged against the applicants and it was filed as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the applicant No. 4. 4. Considering the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand), each, before the Arresting Officer, and on condition that the applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station on each Sunday between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. for three (3) consecutive Sundays henceforth and shall render cooperation to the ( 4 ) Investigating Officer. Any recovery made during course of temporary custodial interrogation, at instance of any of the applicants, may be deemed to be the recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4011-10