1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2555 OF 2009 Vaijinath S/o Bapurao Kamble Versus The State of Maharashtra. *** Mr. S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** 1. Heard learned counsel extensively. In an offence vide Crime NO.72 of 2009 registered with Shirur Anantpal Police Station for the offence under section 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, the accused/ applicant seeks pre- arrest bail. 2. The counsel contended, it was the earlier incident between Lata and Prashant Prabhu Madale and other persons which gave rise to lodging F.I.R. in April, 2009 of kidnapping which does not figure the name of present accused applicant. The role according to the counsel, attributed to the accused/ applicant Vaijinath, is not as grave as is indicated. He has nothing to do with the rift going on between the family members of Lata and that of Prashant Prabhu Madale. The applicant is recently married and he has no criminal record. Hence, counsel urged for pre- arrest bail. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 3. The FIR in unequivocal terms indicates the accused/ applicant possessing a stick and having trespassed in the house of complainant with co- accused. It was in furtherance of their common intention that act has taken place, as prior to that there was a brawl in which present accused/ applicant also played a major role. The nature of injuries and the allegations of assault by present accused/ applicant just cannot be ignored. The witnesses and the complainant were hospitalised. Recovery is to be made. Investigation is in progress. Consequently, no case for pre-arrest bail. Application is rejected. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:24/08/2009. ans/2555