1 ABA-815-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL ANTICIPAORY BAILAPPLICATION NO. 815 OF 2011 1. Mr. Yogesh Sudam Gholap ) 2. Mr. Nanvnath Baban Gholap ) 3. Mr. Ramdas Balasaheb Gholap ) 4. Mr.Raosaheb Ramdas Gholap ) 5. Mr. Tukaram Sudam Gholap ) 6. Mr. Sadashiv Rambhau Kedari ) 7. Mr. Mangesh Manohar Gholap ) 8. Mr. Dattatraya Maruti Gholap ) 9. Mr. Sudam Moru Murade ) 10. Mr. Kisan Jijaba Gholap ).. Applicants Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra ) 2. Police Inspector, Police Station,Otur, ) District Pune. ).. Respondents Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. Subhash Hulyalkar,Advocate, for the applicants. Mr.Y.M.Nakhawak, APP for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 12th October, 2011. P.C. 1. The applicants seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.51/2011 registered at Otur Police Station, District Pune, under Sections 307, 324, 323, 143, 147,148, 149, 504 an 506 of IPC. 2. It appears that Grampanchayat meeting was held in the village 2 ABA-815-11.sxw Rohokadi, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune, on 30.7.2011 and during that meeting some dispute had taken place. In view of that on 31.7.2011, according to prosecution, in all 21 persons formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Bhagwan Natha Gholap and others with sticks, rods, stones, etc. and caused injuries to them. On the basis of that, Crime No.51/2011 was registered. It appears that later on Section 307 of IPC was added. Counter-case, being Crime No.52/2011 was also registered for the similar offences but Sec. 452 of IPC was also added. That case was also registered against 20 persons. 3. After perusal of the police papers and the reports lodged in the counter-cases, it appears that it could be a case of free fight between the two rival groups because of certain disputes in the Grampanchayat and therefore at this stage it is not possible nor desirable to come to any conclusion as to who was the assailant. Fact remains that from both sides, some persons were injured. In the present case, it appears that specific role was attributed to the applicant Ns. 1, 2, 4, and 7. The name of applicant No.3 was also shown in the FIR and all these persons were also injured in that incident, which goes to show that these five applicants had participated in the incident. As far as applicant Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are concerned, though their presence is shown in the FIR, no specific role is attributed to them nor any of them was injured. When in such cases, a large 3 ABA-815-11.sxw number of persons are shown to be involved from both sides, the possibility of some persons being impleaded because of the group rivalry cannot be ruled out. Therefore, whether Section 307 of IPC is applicable or not need not be considered at this stage, but in view of the facts noted above, the applicant Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 may be granted anticipatory bail. That protection cannot be given to persons who had participated in that incident. 4. Therefore, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 51/2011, the applicant No.5 – Tukaram Sudam Gholap, applicant No.6 – Sadashiv Rambhau Kedari, applicant No.8 – Dattatraya Maruti Gholap, applicant No.9 – Sudam Moru Murade and applicant No.10 – Kisan Jijaba Gholap be released on their executing P.R.of Rs.5,000/- each with a surety in like amount with condition that they shall make themselves available to police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation and shall fully co-operate in the investigation. 5. Application to the extent of applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)