1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 449 OF 2010 1. Sudam Gokul Patil 2. Budhaji Hiru Thakur 3. Anil Vasant Naik .. Applicants V/s The State of Maharahstra .. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. A.P. Mundari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. I-442 2 of 2009 registered at Kalamboli Police Station District Raigad, for an alleged offence punishable under sections 307, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 49, 427 and 323 of the I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case is that on account of election rivalry and in particular as the complainant was working as a political worker for a political party, the applicants and other members of another political party assaulted the complainant and damaged his motor vehicle (Santro car). The applicants along with 4-5 persons came in a Bolero jeep and effected the assault. They were armed with hockey sticks and wooden rods. The applicants assaulted the complainant on the body as well as on the head with the stick. The applicants were stating that the complainant should be killed and should not be kept alive. The complainant survived and lodged an F.I.R. 4. In the F.I.R., the complainant named 3 three persons by name whom he knew and stated that they were accompanied by 4-5 unknown persons. So far as the applicant no.3 is concerned, he has not been named in the F.I.R. There is no prima facie material on record to indicate that the applicant no.3 was present at the spot. Hence, the applicant no.3 is entitled to pre-arrest bail. 5. So far as the applicant nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they have been specifically named in the F.I.R. Learned A.P.P. submitted that custody of the applicant nos.1 and 2 is needed for the purpose of finding out the names of 4-5 other persons who had accompanied the assailants. Custodial interrogation has its own benefits. Without the custodial interrogation, it may not be possible to identify the 4-5 accomplices who were party to the riot and the assault. In the circumstances, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to the applicant nos.1 and 2. Hence, I pass the following order: 4 ORDER (a) The application is partly allowed. The applicant no.3 – Anil Vasant Naik is granted pre-arrest bail. It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the applicant no.3 in connection with C.R. No.I-442 of 2009 registered at Kalamboli Police Station, District Raigad, he shall be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. (b) The application of the applicant nos.1 and 2 for pre-arrest bail is however rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)