(1) CRI.APP. 3531.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3531 OF 2010 1. Shri Shridhar Govind Gaikwad 2. Shri Sushil Gundu Jadhav 3. Shri Pramod Baburao Gaikwad 4. Shri Vinod Baburao Gaikwad 5. Shri Sunil Gundu Jadhav 6. Shri Pravin Mahadev Shinde 7. Shri Netaji Shivshankar Palapure 8. Shri Shivaji Madhukar Somwanshi .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. V.G. Shelke, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application for anticipatory bail. 2. Heard leaned counsel. 3. Perusal of the FIR purports to show that the first informant is a student and is taking education in 12th standard. On 7th August, 2010 at about midday he had gone to a medical store for purchasing (2) CRI.APP. 3531.2010 some tablets. His motorcycle went from near the applicants nos. 1 to 3. He returned home. At about 7:30 pm. the applicants nos. 1 to 3 came in front of his house and called his father. He informed them that his father had gone to agricultural land. The applicant no. 1 asked him as to when his father would return. He told them that his father would come back in the morning. He then enquired why in the noon time he had given a sudden cut to the motorcycle while passing from near them. He told them that he had not done so and also apologised if he had committed any mistake. It is alleged that after some time all the applicants went there and started abusing him in name of his caste. They called him "Mahardya, Dhedgya" and the applicants nos. 2 and 6 started beating him by means of kicks and fist blows. He cried for help. His mother and some neighbours came there and tried to intervene. The applicants allegedly assaulted them. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR is lodged due to previous enmity and the applicants are unnecessarily roped in. (3) CRI.APP. 3531.2010 It is contended that the applicants are likely to be humiliated on account of their probable arrest. It is pointed out that the FIR does not show which of the applicant uttered the insulting words with reference to the caste of the informant. It is further submitted that when nothing had occurred in the noon time or at the second occasion around 7:30 pm., it is difficult to prima facie believe that subsequently the applicants would go to the house of the informant and insult him on the ground of his being member of scheduled caste. 5. I find it difficult to prima facie accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the applicants. First, the informant is a student and ordinarily had no serious enmity to implicate the applicants in a false case. Secondly, had he any intention to falsely implicate them, he could have stated that in the same noon or during the second incident at about 7:30 pm. all of them had insulted him on ground of his being member of scheduled case or had assaulted him. What prima facie appears from the recitals of (4) CRI.APP. 3531.2010 the FIR is that the applicants nos. 1 to 3 were annoyed since a sharp turn was taken by the motorcycle of the informant from their proximity on road while he was returning from the medical shop. It appears that when they again visited the house of the informant at about 7:30 pm. he might have used some harsh language which irked them. It is probable therefore that they went away and returned with other accused persons in order to teach the informant a lesson. In any case, in the absence of any serious prior enmity, the informant had no business to name all the applicants as participants of the incident. It is true that he did not name any particular applicant who addressed the insulting language or words such as "Mahardya or Dhedgya". However, that would not be the criterion to be taken into account at such a pre-mature stage inasmuch as it is matter of investigation. Considering these aspects, the Application is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp