1appln-2690-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2690/2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr M.R. Jhakade, for the Applicants. Mrs M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 18TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in C.R.No.I-65/2010 registered with Ambernath Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 326, 427, 143, 147, 149 of I.P.C. read with Section 37 (1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. First Information Report is lodged by one Pandit Namdeo Mhatre on 11.4.2010 in which the names of present applicants along with other co-accused were mentioned. Role assigned to the present applicants is that they were present on the spot during the incident of assault. They assaulted witnesses by name Ganesh Mhatre ( brother of the complainant), Santosh Divekar, Vitthal Divekar and Pramod Divekar by means of iron pipes and fist blows. Apparently, the said 2appln-2690-10 incident occurred on account of certain quarrel over the distribution of money during the local elections of Ambernath Municipal Council. Reportedly, investigation is still in progress. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicants relied on anticipatory bail order in favour of main accused No.1 granted by the Sessions Court. On this learned A.P.P. for the State brought to the notice of this Court that though in the F.I.R. name of accused No.1 was mentioned as using the weapon to assault, in the supplementary statement the first informant had clarified that due to mistake he took the name of accused No.1. These circumstances must have been weighed with the learned Sessions Court for granting anticipatory bail to Accused No.1 and as such the decision cannot be taken so as to favour the present applicants in this application for anticipatory bail, as, at the cost of repetition it must be said that in the F.I.R. names of present applicants are taken and there is no supplementary statement refuting the earlier statement. 4. Considering the above circumstances it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, application stands disposed of with the following order. ORDER: Application is hereby dismissed. Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J) 3appln-2690-10