1 criapln2116-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2116 OF 2011 1] Md. Ishaq S/o Abdul Rahim Qureshi 2] Md. Tareque S/o Abdul Rahim Qureshi 3] Md. Zaki S/o Md. Osman Qureshi 4] Md. Rizwan S/o Md. Tareek Qureshi 5] Md. Irfan S/o Md. Tareek Qureshi 6] Md. Ziya S/o Md. Osman Qureshi .. APPLICANTS Vs 1] The State of Maha. 2] The Superintendent of Police Hingoli,Tq. & Dist.Hingoli ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri H.I.Pathan, Adv.for applicants. Shri G.R.Ingole,APP for R-State. ... CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2211/2011 1] Dr.Arun @ Ashok S/o Diliprao Deshmukh 2] Dr.Ashish @ Yeshwant S/o Diliprao Deshmukh 3] Abhijit S/o Diliprao Deshmukh 4] Shankarrao S/o Lobhaji Mandade 5] Vinayak S/o Digambar Jadhav 2 criapln2116-11 6] Sahebrao S/o Laxman Mandade 7] Dilip S/o Narayan Joshi 8] Kuldip S/o Pradip Deshmukh 9] Rupesh S/o Apparao Deshmukh. .. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENT .... Shri V.D.Salunke,Adv.for applicants. Shri G.R.Ingole,APP for State. .... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 22/07/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] Both these applications are filed for anticipatory bail. Papers of investigation are made available. All the sides are heard. 2] The first proceeding is filed in Crime No.37/11 registered in Police station Akhada Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli, for offences punishable u/ss. 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 323 & 34 of I.P.C. 3 criapln2116-11 3] The second proceeding is filed in Crime No.38/11 registered in the same police station for offences punishable u/s 325, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 of I.P.C. 4] The dispute is in respect of one country liquor shop for which one Dilip Deshmukh has obtained license. In the first proceeding, report is given by one Vinayak Jadhav against applicants of the first proceedings. He has contended that in the past, Dilip had made agreement like Nokarnama in favour of one Zia Qureshi but after expiry of the period of agreement, Nokarnama came to be made in favour of Vinayak Jadhav and some other persons and since 1/4/11, they are running the country liquor shop. On the other hand, in Crime No.38/11, one Mohd. Isaq has made allegations that even after expiry of the period of agreement, Mohd.Zia Mohd.Qureshi is running the shop. 5] The incident took place on 21/4/11. Both sides have made allegations against each other that they were in possession of the shop and other side came with many persons armed with weapons like sticks etc. and assault was made on the complainants side. 6] In the first proceeding, there are injury certificates issued by private hospital in favour of Vinayak Jadhav and Sudhakar Shinde. Vinayak Jadhav sustained injuries like multiple contusions on 4 criapln2116-11 shoulder, forearm and legs. Sudhakar sustained injuries like fracture to left ulna with crush injury to left thumb. 7] In the second proceeding, there are injury certificates in respect of Mohd. Isaq and injury is described as fracture of right hand wrist. There is injury certificate in respect of Maroti Karale and he sustained one C.L.W. on head. Injury certificate in respect of Lakoddin shows that he sustained one C.L.W. on head. The panchanama from both sides show that some incident did take place as damage was caused to glass of the shop and some sticks were lying there in broken condition. 8] Submissions made by advocates of the 2 sides show that the dispute started from January 2011. Civil Suit is filed by the side of Zia Qureshi on the basis of documents like Nokarnama and partnership agreement. They could not get any relief. The advocate for applicants in second proceeding submitted that proceeding filed before Collector in respect of license is dismissed and the decision of Collector is challenged before Commissioner. 9] Allegations are made in the second proceeding against applicant nos.1 and 2 that they took active part in the incident. Allegations are made that Dr.Ashis Deshmukh attempted to give blow of stick to the complainant which hit the complainant on his hand and 5 criapln2116-11 the second blow hit his left leg. Allegations are made against Abhijit Deshmukh that he gave blow of knife on the head of Lakoddin and Vinayak Jadhav gave blow of handle of sword on the head of Maroti Karale. The injuries shown to be caused are Contused Lacerated Wounds and contusions. Unfortunately, the Government hospital has not described the probable cause of the injuries, weapon and the certificates are in the form of case papers and not in the form of Medico Legal Case. Advocate for applicant nos.1 and 2 from the second proceeding submitted that applicant no.1 is medical practitioner in Pune and applicant no.2 is a Veterinary doctor doing private practice and they are falsely implicated. 10] These circumstances show that there is dispute of civil nature. Probability of exaggeration from both sides cannot be disputed. Both sides sustained fracture injuries but no incised wound was sustained. In these circumstances, it is difficult to ascertain the exact role played by them as there is possibility of exaggeration due to the civil dispute. So, this Court holds that relief can be granted to both sides subject to some conditions. 11] Both applications are allowed. Interim relief granted to both sides is confirmed. Applicant no.2 Dr.Ashis Deshmukh, applicant no.3 Abhijit Deshmukh and applicant no.5 Vinayak Jadhav from second proceeding are to attend concerned police station for the period of 1 6 criapln2116-11 month on every Sunday between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. for the purpose of interrogation and all the applicants from the second proceeding are to cooperate with investigation officer. They are not to tamper with prosecution witnesses. They are not to commit similar offence. 12] Interim relief granted in the first proceeding is also confirmed subject to condition that applicant no.6 Md.Ziya S/o Mohd.Osman Qureshi is to attend concerned police station for the period of 1 month on every Sunday between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. for the purpose of interrogation and all the applicants from the first proceeding are to cooperate with investigation officer. They are not to tamper with prosecution witnesses. They are not to commit similar offence. If any instance of similar nature between the two parties again takes place, the State is at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail granted to applicants of both proceedings. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln2116-11