..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2025 OF 2008 Nitin Suressh Gadge and 6 Ors. ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. ... Mr.M.S.Mohite, Adv. h/f. Mr.Shailesh Kantharia, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. Mr.S.V.Gavand, Adv. for orig.complainant. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. DATED : 22nd July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants, the learned Advocate for orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R. No.I-194 of 2008 of Panvel Town police station. The said case is mainly under Section 326 of IPC. 3. All the applicants have been named in the FIR. The FIR is lodged by Rekha who is an injured ..(2).. witness. Rekha has stated that all the seven applicants came to their house at about 2:30 a.m.. The applicants were armed with sticks, bottles and iron rods. They pulled her father out of the house and started assaulting. Applicant No.1 assaulted her on the head with bottle. On hearing the shouts their neighbour Marphi intervened. Marphi was also assaulted on the head and other parts of the body with iron rod. Five persons have been injured in the incident i.e. Marphi, Ganesh, Sushil, Ankush and the complainant Rekha. Marphi has sustained five injuries out of which three injuries are grievous. The said three injuries are on the head. Marphi had sustained fracture of the parietal bones. Ganesh sustained four injuries in the incident. He sustained two injuries on the head out of which one injury was fracture of the temporal bone. Sushil sustained two injuries one injury was CLW on the head occipital region. Ankush sustained three injuries out of which two injuries were CLW on the head. Rekha also sustained injury on the head. In the said incident, at least two persons i.e. Ganesh and Marphi have sustained fracture of the head. The material on record clearly implicates the ..(3).. applicants. 4. Mr.Mohite has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State State State of M.P. Vs. Sardar of M.P. Vs. Sardar of M.P. Vs. Sardar reported in 2001 Supreme 2001 Supreme 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1136 Court Cases (Cri) 1136 Court Cases (Cri) 1136. In the said judgment, the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused at the time of occurrence is set out. However, in the said case, it is seen that the evidence was led and after the trial was concluded these observations have been made at the appellate stage. In the present case the trial has yet to commence. Hence, this decision would not be applicable to the present case, at this stage. 5. Mr.Mohite the learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that there is a cross-case wherein some of the injured witnesses in the present case are accused persons. It is seen that the said case is under Section 324 of IPC. Four persons were injured in the said case. I have perused the medical certificates. As per the medical certificate all the injuries are simple in nature. However Mr.Mohite pointed out that as far as injured witness Avinash is concerned, he has ..(4).. sustained injury to the tooth which would covered by Section 326 of IPC. However, the learned APP states that injury certificate of Avinash which has been collected by the investigating agency does not mention the said injury to tooth. In any event, on looking at the medical certificates of both sides, it is seen that the applicants are the aggressors. The offences alleged against them are serious. They have been specifically named in the FIR. Looking to these facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 6. The observations in the present order are only prima facie and they shall not influence the Sessions Court while deciding the application for regular bail and the trial. 7. On the request of the learned Advocate for the applicants, the applicants are granted time upto 26th July, 2008 to surrender. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)