1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No. 280/2011 Shaikh Sultan Shaikh Hatim and another ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. Washim Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R. M. Rizwy, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. P. D. Kothari, A.P.P. for the respondent CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 19.9.2011. 1. Heard Mr. R. M. Rizwy, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. P. D. Kothari, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. The applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in Washim Police Station, Crime No. 249/2011 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act, have filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. The respondent has filed reply resisting the application. 4. It is seen that there are six injured persons namely i) Mirza Majid Beg, ii) Afrojkhan Firozkhan, iii) Roshan Ara Begam, 2 iv) Ismaile Ibrahimkhan, v) Dilawarkhan Firojkhan, vi) Mirza Salar Beg. The injury certificates issued by the Doctor are perused by me. From the records made available to me by the learned A.P.P., it is seen that some of the injured persons have sustained injuries with sharp weapon and others with hard and rough objects. Some injuries are grievous in nature. 5. The perusal of the report lodged by Mirza M. Baig, reveals that both the present applicants had assaulted him with iron rod and thereby grievous injuries were caused to him. The iron rods are yet to be recovered. 6. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the applicants that there is counter complaint also lodged by Najimkha registered under Crime No. 251/11. However, the counter complaint pertains to the incident which occurred at 5.30 p.m. on the same day and the offence is under Sections 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The incident of the complaint lodged by Mirza Beg registered under Crime No. 249/2011, had occurred subsequently at 5.30 p.m. and is serious in nature. It is seen that in none of the crimes, any of the persons named therein was granted anticipatory bail. Some persons may have been already released on bail in the present crime but they were in police custody for some days. 3 7. Considering the nature of offence and prima facie evidence, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 8. Hence, the application is rejected. Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Punde.