ABA-358-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2011 Mahesh Balaram Shende & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Panvel Town Police Station ... Respondent Mr. R.R. Salvi for the Applicants. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent. Mr. Sachin C. Bhor, the First Informant, is present in person. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 27 TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the F.I.R. in which the Applicants have been named as the ‘assailants’. 3. Mr. Salvi, the learned Advocate for the Applicants, submitted that the First Informant/Injured is present in the Court and that he is ready to state before the Court that the assailants were actually some different persons and not the present Applicants. Since the First Informant is present in the Court, I have asked him and he, indeed, states that he was assaulted not by the Applicants, but by some other ABA-358-11.sxw 2 Dixit persons. There is, however, no satisfactory explanation as to how the names of the Applicants came to be recorded in the F.I.R. as the assailants. 4. I have gone through the order passed by this Court on 27th April, 2011. 5. Mr. Salvi submits that in view of the statement of the First Informant, the Applicants be granted anticipatory bail by confirming interim order. 6. In my opinion, the Applicants have approached the First Informant and arrived at some understanding and what the First Informant now states is the result of that understanding. Having set the machinery of Criminal Law in motion, the First Informant cannot now pose, as if he never had any grievance against the Applicants, or that he never named them as the assailants. Compounding, where permitted by law is possible, but an attempt to manipulate the process of Criminal Law cannot be encouraged. In my opinion, such practices are to be deprecated. Therefore, without going into the question as to whether the Applicants can be granted anticipatory bail by examining the nature of the offence etc., I think it fit not to exercise the discretion of this Court in the matter of anticipatory bail in favour of the Applicants. The Applicants appear to have attempted to help themselves by means which cannot be said to be legal and have attempted to manipulate the legal process. 7. Under these circumstances, exercising the discretion of the Court in their favour would not be proper. 8. The Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]