1 ABA-81.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2011 1. Anil Sanap & 2. Sachin Sanap .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri Balkrishna Joshi for the Applicants. Ms A.A. Mane, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 17, 2011 P.C: 1. Two brothers seek anticipatory bail, since their complicity in the assault on one Malpani has been indicated in the offence bearing Crime No.174 of 2010, registered by Police Station, Khopoli. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Malpani did not in fact suffer any serious injuries and his injuries have been aggravated by taking Malpani to a private hospital only in order to show that a serious offence was committed. He further submits that both the applicants were not present at the time of the incident and they are tried to be roped in by resorting to 2 ABA-81.11 Section 120-B of the IPC. I have carefully considered the submissions in the light of the investigation which has been carried out. Applicant No.1-Anil, apart from the fact that he had a grievance with the company where Malpani was serving about the discontinuation of his contract of private transport vehicles, had also sent an SMS to Malpani on 18-11-2010 which may mean a veiled threat to teach lesson to persons who do not understand ordinary signals of life. Therefore, there is no question of the applicant-Anil being admitted to anticipatory bail. 2. As far as applicant No.2-Sachin is concerned, he seems to have been roped only because he is the brother of Anil. There is a prior incident of assault on one Mule in which Sachin's name is taken but Mule did not state that it was Sachin who actually assaulted Mule. He was only present at the time of the incident. It is possible to rope anyone by saying that he was present at the time of the previous assault. Therefore, the applicant Sachin's being in custody for the purpose of investigation is not at all necessary. Hence the application is partly allowed in so far it relates to applicant No.2-Sachin. In the event 3 ABA-81.11 of the applicant No.2-Sachin's arrest, he be released on bail in the afore-stated crime number on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/- on the condition that the applicant-Sachin shall report at the police station concerned on 21-2-2011 at 10:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O.. The applicant-Sachin shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 3. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicant-Sachin may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 4 ABA-81.11 4. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)