1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.687 OF 2010 1. Somnath S/o.Babasaheb Tambe, Age-23 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 2. Dnyaneshwar Devidas Gaikwad, Age-19 years, Occu-Education, Both are R/o.Burudgaon Road, Tq.Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 26/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants in CR No.7/2010, registered in Kotwali Police Station of Dist. Ahmednagar, have approached this court for their release on regular bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation. 2 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Dnyaneshwar Barku about the alleged incident occurred in the night of 09/01/2010, while the complainant was alongwith his wife after taking dinner. At that time, dispute arose as the vehicle coming from the opposite direction, gave flash of dipper on the face of his wife. When questioned, some persons alighted from that vehicle and assaulted the complainant with sword. The complaint discloses 3 names as the persons who attacked on the complainant. But there is a specific role given to the person who has given the sword blow on the head of complainant. This Court need not enter into the controversy whether in reality, offence punishable u/s. 307 of The IPC is made out or not, as the injury certificate on record shows nature of injury as simple, even though the injury was on the vital part of body of complainant, but the fact remains that from the disclosure of the names of the assailants and role played by them, these applicants were not the persons, who were holding deadly weapons and assaulted the complainant even though their names appeared in the complaint. 4. These applicants were arrested in connection with this offence on 10/01/2010. The complainant is discharged from the hospital. Considering the nature of accusation, no likelihood of tampering of the prosecution witnesses. As apparently no role is attributed to these applicants about assault on the complainant, case is made out to enlarge them on bail. Hence order : 3 O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Both the applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, the applicants not to contact with the complainant and other witnesses of prosecution. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.687-10