ssp 1 appln3259.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3259 OF 2010 Shyamdhar Chabinath Yadav .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Dilip Shukla i/b M/s.SBG & Associates for Applicant Mr.P.S.Hingorani, A.P.P for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : AUGUST 5TH, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.I-128/2010 for the offence punishable under sections 326,324, 452, 504, 506, 427 and also offences of rioting, armed with deadly weapons and also section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 On the earlier date i.e. 29 th July 2010, rival arguments were also heard at length and the matter was posted today for presence of the applicant. Such specific directions were given as the learned A.P.P for State requested for presence of the applicant. This was more so because there was earlier order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the ssp 2 appln3259.sxw application of the present applicant only on the sole count of non appearance of the present applicant though directed to remain present. That circumstance prompted the said Court to dismiss his application for anticipatory bail. After the dismissal of the application, present application was moved before this Court for similar relief. As detailed in the earlier order dated 29 th July 2010 of this Court, the incident is narrated in paragraph 2 of the said order. In the said incident there was assault on the complainant and his other neighbours by the present applicant along with his other known and unknown associates, more than about 22 to 25 persons armed with wooden sticks and iron bars. It was the dispute over the payment of some water charges. 3 Today, heard the arguments. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that reportedly there is a cross complaint lodged against the complainant and other neighbours in the present matter. However, the said complaint is not lodged by the present applicant and he is also not mentioned as a witness. By this argument, it is tried to establish that the applicant was definitely not present on the spot and on the entire day of the incident i.e. 5 th April 2010 he was at Vasai Court and as such, affidavit to that effect has been sworned by his Advocate who had lodged some civil suit on his behalf on ssp 3 appln3259.sxw that day. When asked to the learned Advocate for the applicant as to whether in any application for anticipatory bail either before the Sessions Court or before this Court Court whether there is any mention as to lodging of the cross case, he replied in the negative. 4 Considering the prima facie allegations against the applicant as to taking his specific name as main assailant and creating atmosphere of rioting armed with weapons along with 22 to 25 associates and considering the injury certificates which were shown to the Court even on the earlier date and having some serious injuries to the three persons, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to grant discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail to the applicant and hence order : . Criminal Application no.3259 of 2010 stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)