:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1435 OF 2006 Deepak Kakasaheb Aaherrao and anr. ....Petitioners. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. ---- Mr. K.S. Patil for the petitioners Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. ---- CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATE: DATE: DATE: 12th April, 2006 12th April, 2006 12th April, 2006 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners have an apprehension that they are likely to be arrested in connection with C.R. No.80 of 2006 registered at Hadapsar Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner No.1 who was driving the truck dashed him with an intention to kill him and some unknown persons came on motorcycle and assaulted him and as a result of the said dash which was given by the petitioners’ truck he suffered grievous injuries and he is being :2: still treated in the hospital. In the complaint a specific reference has been made of the present petitioners. 4. It is submitted by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that the petitioner No.1 was absconding for a period of one week though this fact has been denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. So far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, she is wife of Petitioner No.1. There is no incriminating evidence against her except the fact that her name has been mentioned in the FIR. 5. No case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned as the matter needs to be investigated and the custodial interrogation of petitioner No.1 is necessary since, admittedly, there was an enmity between the petitioner No.1 and the complainant. His application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. 6. However, so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, since there is no evidence against her, in my view, prima facie case has been made out for granting anticipatory bail to her. The petitioner No.2, in the event of her arrest in connection with :3: the said offence, be released on bail in the sum of Rs 10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The petitioner No.2 shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and shall report to the Investigating Officer whenever she is called between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. 7. The application of Petitioner No.1 for anticipatory bail is rejected. 8. It is clarified that the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court while deciding this application for anticipatory bail and it should not be construed to mean as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall decide the regular bail application if preferred by the petitioner No.1 on its own merits and in accordance with law. 9. Application is accordingly disposed of. V.M. V.M. V.M. KANADE, J. KANADE, J. KANADE, J.