IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3258 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3091 OF 2009. Krishna Malohari Khillare ..... ..... ...Applicant V/s Rajaram Balasaheb Kalbhor Yuvraj Vilas Kalbhor The State of Maharashtra ..... ..... .Respondents. Mr.Mohan Wadekar i/by Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.V.B.Tapkir, Adv. For respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.3. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 29th Sept., 2009. PC: Criminal application No.3091 of 2009 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents herein by name Rajaram Kalbhor and Uvraj Kalbhor. Similar application claiming the same relief has also been filed by the first informant. Notice were issued to the respondents and in response to the same they have put in appearance. Heard learned APP and the counsel for the first informant so also counsel for the respondents- accused. Perusal of the FIR reveals that respondent No.1-Rajaram Kalbhor has assaulted the first informant on his head by using a weapon like sword. Consequent upon the assault by respondent No.1 on the head the first informant fell down and was admitted to hospital. It is also alleged in the FIR that during the incident golden chain weighing 2 ½ tolas and sum of RS.1 lac were robbed from the first informant. The allegations are also made in the FIR touching the 1 commission of offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Perusal of the injury certificate reveals that the first informant had sustained fracture on the skull and injury was grievous in nature which required hospitalisation of the first informant for a period of nine days. In so far as respondent No.1 is concerned it is also stated in the application filed by the State that he has criminal antecedents and has been arrested prior to the present incident in CR No.143/02 and is being prosecuted for commission of offence under section 379. According to the learned counsel for the applicant custodial interrogation of respondent No.1-Orig. Accused No.1 by name Rajaram Kalbhor is a must with a view to recover weapon used in the commission of offence and for investigating the cause for occurrence of incident. There are two grounds assigned by the Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail to the present respondents and the same are (i) delay in lodging the FIR which is about 24 hours and (ii) complete name of the respondents has not been mentioned. What is stated in the FIR is that Raju Kalbhorhas assaulted the first informant. While granting anticipatory bail the Court has found that the identity of the accused has not been established as his full name is not disclosed. In my considered opinion, the accused persions are named in the FIR. Rajaram Kalbhor has been referred to as Raju Kalbhor. The said incomplete naming of accused No.1 can hardly provide any justification for granting anticipatory bail. The order passed by the Sessions Judge does not reveal consideration of injury certificate. It is also a matter of record that original accused Rajaram Kalbhor is having criminal antecedents. 2. So far as respondent No.2-Uvraj Kalbhor is concerned there are no specific allegations touching overtact on his part and the first 2 informant is allegedly assaulted by Rajaram Kalbhor by sword like weapon which has caused fracture of skull and hospitalization of first informant for a period of nine days. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances and with a view to facilitate a thorough investigation I deem it appropriate to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1-Rajaram Balasaheb Kalbhor. In the result I pass the following order: i) Present applications to the extent they relate to respondent No.2-Uvraj Vilas Kalbor is concerned the same stand rejected. ii) Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused No.1-Rajaram Balasaheb Kalbhor is allowed. The anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1-Rajaram Kalbhor by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.6.09 stands cancelled. 3. At this stage learned counsel for respondent No.1 seeks time to surrender. Respondent No.1 is granted time to surrender till 5.10.2009. 29.9.2009. 3