1 sns IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.530 OF 2011 Deepak Radharaman Mandal ...Applicant. v/s The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Mr. Ghanashyam Upadhyay i/by M/s Law Juris ,advs. For the Applicant. Ms S.V.Sonawane, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA,J. DATED : AUGUST 30,2011. P.C. 1 Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in crime no.36 of 2009 registered with Juhu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,144,148,452,324, 326, 307 r/w Sections 34 and 149 of the I.P.C. 2 It appears that the F.I.R. was lodged by one Gopal R. Mishra. According to him at about 15.30 hours, he was told by supervisor Shilkant Mishra that another supervisor Bhanudas was assaulted by 6-7 persons with fists and kick blows. They included the present applicant. That incident was over. After sometime at 3.45 p.m., one Ravi Shivgan, who was among said 6-7 persons, who had previously assaulted Bhanudas, came with knife and stabbed 2 Gopal Mishra on the ground that he had come to rescue of Bhanudas. In that incident, first informant Gopal Mishra suffered injuries. After the investigation, case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Some of the accused persons filed an application for discharge, which was rejected by the Sessions Court. Against that revision application no.519 of 2009 was filed. That revision application was allowed by this Court by an order dated 11.9.2009. It was held that the charge-sheet was filed in respect of two different instances. First incident pertaining beating Bhanudas by 6-7 persons with fists and kick blows is an offence punishable under section 323 of the I.P.C. which is non cognizable offence and, therefore, the applicants/accused, who were involved in that first incident were discharged. Prosecution was given liberty to proceed with the 2nd part of the incident as per law in the Sessions Case. 3 The applicant apprehends that he may be arrested by the police and his apprehension is based on the ground that he was not one of the accused, 3 who had made application for discharge nor he was one of the applicants, whose revision application was allowed. Therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail. 4 The learned APP is unable to make statement whether police have intention to arrest the present applicant or not. On perusal of the record and the order passed by the High Court in revision application , it is clear that the persons, who were involved in the first incident, which was non- cognizable offence, could not be prosecuted in Sessions Case in respect of stabbing of the first informant Gopal Mishra. F.I.R. clearly shows that he was stabbed only by one person Ravi Shivgan. F.I.R. does not disclose that any other person was with Ravi at the time of assault. 5 Therefore, in the event of arrest in crime no.36 of 2009 registered with Juhu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,144,148,452,324, 326, 307 r/w section 34 and 149 of the I.P.C., applicant be released on his executing PR of Rs.15,000/- with surety in the like amount with condition that he shall make himself 4 available before the police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation/investigation. 6 Application stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)