1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1827 OF 2010 Shaikh Raoof S/o.Shaikh Abbas Age-25 years, Occu-Student, R/o.Palwan, Taluka and Dist. Beed APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Venkat Raosaheb Ugale, Age:30 years, Occu-NIL R/o.Palwan, Taluka and Dist. Beed. RESPONDENTS Mr.K.G.Khader, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.K.S.Patil, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 09/06/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release in connection with CR No.40/2010, registered in Beed Police Station, for the offence punishable u/s. 307, 504 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. 3. In this case, inadvertently, interim order came to be passed on 2 11/05/2010, which is admittedly an incorrect order, hence require no consideration. 4. Considering the submissions across the bar and on perusal of papers of investigation, it appears that the present application is moved in connection with CR No.40/2010, while during the course of said commission of offence, FIR was also registered against the complainant in CR No.40/2010 vide CR No.39/2010, which was registered at the instance of present applicant. It appears that this incident occurred on 07/04/2010, and there was free fight between two groups. The present applicant was admitted in the hospital, as he has sustained injuries on the temporal region admeasuring 3" x 1/2" deep, while the complainant in CR No.40/2010 has sustained 4 injuries. The nature of injuries are shown as simple. Even though in both the injury certificates, nature of injuries are shown as simple, but the injuries are not simple in nature as per the description of injuries themselves. But the fact remains that like the complainant in CR No.40/2010 sustained injuries, the present applicant has also sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital on the same day and they were subsequently discharged. As there are cross complaints, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence at the hands of applicant, or the complainant. In view of this, following is the order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3 3. After released on bail, applicant not to contact the prosecution witnesses and not to tamper the evidence of prosecution. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.1827-10