1512appln1898.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1898 of 2010. (Parvej Khan Hasan Khan ..vs..State of Mah. through P.S.O.P.S.Wardha) ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.A.S.Manohar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.S.M.Bhagde, APP for the respondent. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 15 th December, 2010. Heard Mr.Manohar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Bhagde, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. By the present application, the applicant approached this court for pre-arrest bail by apprehending his arrest. The report is lodged at Wardha Police station. The sum and substance of the report lodged by one Prashant Nehare is that the applicant along with some other accused persons assaulted one Vipin, Manoj and the complainant Prashant. There is some previous enmity between these two groups on the ground of old pending court proceedings. Learned Advocate Mr.Manohar, by inviting my attention to the First Information Report, submits that complainant Prashant, who claims himself to be the witness of the incident and an injured in the assault, has not attributed any specific role to the applicant. A general statement is made in the report that the accused persons were armed with weapons namely; stones, knife, tile and assaulted Vipin, Majoj 1512appln1898.10.odt 2 and complainant Prashant. He further submits that even the nature of the injuries received to Prashant is of minor nature i.e. injuries on cheek, lips and left hand. Mr.Manohar, learned counsel for the applicant, further submits that the applicant was intimated through communication dated 23/10/2010 by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Wardha asking him to remain present before the court of Magistrate on 25/10/2010 at 9 O’clock. Mr.Manohar further submits that as per the instructions and statements made in the application, the applicant was present and was attending the proceedings before the learned Magistrate and he submits that the applicant was not at all present on the spot. He further submits that only with a view to implicate the applicant on the previous enmity, the applicant is falsely roped in the crime. Mr.Manohar further submits that in view of such a material, there is no need for requiring any custodial interrogation of the applicant. Per contra, learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the application. He submits that the offence is serious in nature. He further submits that the victim namely; Vipin and Manoj have received serious injuries. He further submits that it is not in dispute that two groups were having enmity and the applicant, who was present on the spot, actively participated in the assault. He further submits that there are the statements of the witnesses which reveal the presence of the applicant and his active participation in the crime. He further refers to the statements of the witnesses namely; Prashant and Nilesh. He further submits that the medical evidence is also supporting the case of the prosecution. I have perused the record. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency refer that the 1512appln1898.10.odt 3 applicant used tile and assaulted Vipin which cased head injury to victim Vipin. The medical report, which is placed on record, shows that victim Vipin received stabbed injury over forehead. In view of the fact that the medical certificate shows victim Vipin received head injury and whereas the statements recorded by the Investigating Agency, on which the much reliance was placed by the learned A.P.P., in which it is stated by these witnesses that the applicant used tile and caused injury to Vipin, it is not in dispute that there is no sharp weapon used by the applicant in the crime. Moreover, the statement on oath made by the applicant is that the applicant was attending the proceedings before the learned Magistrate in response to the communication dated 23/10/2010. This statement is also not countered in the reply. It is also not in dispute that there is long standing enmity between the two groups. In view of the material placed before me and the submissions of the learned Advocate for the applicant, I find considerable merit in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the material collected by the Investigating Agency falls short to connect the applicant with the crime and there are loopholes in the case of prosecution, which are unexplained. In my opinion, the prima faice case is made out. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection is confirmed with the condition that the applicant to attend the Wardha Police station on every Monday and Thursday between 9.00 and 12.00 p.m. JUDGE 1512appln1898.10.odt 4 chute