{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3767 OF 2009 1. Shaikh Shoab Fakir Mahammed @ Banta Age-25 years, Occ-Social Work R/o Zendigate, Ahmednagar, 2. Shaikh Akil Liyakat Age-26 years, Occ-Business R/o zindigate, Ahmednagar APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 30th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No.328/2009 registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar for an offence punishable u/s 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 37 (1) (3) & 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. {2} 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, carried out till today. 3. On 9th November 2009, considering the remarks in the medical certificate, directions were given to the APP to keep the IO present in the Court and to produce X-ray report. Accordingly, the X-ray along with the report of radiologist is shown to me, which indicates the injuries sustained by the complainant. 3. It appears that the alleged offence came to be registered on 7th October 2009 on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Mohd. Yusuf Mohd Yakub Bagwan. In the compliant the role played by the applicants as well as other accused is disclosed. There is allegation against applicant No.1 that he gave blow of sword on the head of the complainant, however he had taken the same on his hand and hence sustained injury on his palm. Allegation against applicant No.2 is that he gave blow of an iron rod on the knee of the complainant. These allegations are required to be considered in the light of the medical certificate and the report of the radiologist. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, by drawing my attention towards the report of radiologist, has contended that there no fracture sustained by the complainant. It is also contended that there is delay in lodging the compliant, which need {3} not be considered at this juncture. The fact remains that immediately after the medical examination, it nowhere found that there is dislocation of any organ or fracture of any organ of the complainant. Apart from it, it is urged that the injuries sustained by the complainant are not on the vital part. In the premise, at least at this stage, it prima facie appears that the injuries sustained by the complainant cannot be covered u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. At the most it can be covered u/s 324 and 326 of the IPC. 5. Though the application is opposed by the learned APP, yet it cannot be overlooked that the applicants are arrested on 18th October 2009 and since then they are in jail. This Court is of the view that considering the prima facie offence, this much custody is sufficient for them. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Both the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicants not to leave local jurisdiction of the police station where they reside till the charge sheet is filed. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3767-09