1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.780 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.467 OF 2010 Navnath Vasantrao Bhendekar and another ..Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents ..... Mrs.S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for applicants. Mrs.Vaishali Shinde, APP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.S. Thombre, Advocate for complainant. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J DATE : 16th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mrs.S.S. Jadahv, learned counsel for applicants as well as Mrs.Vaishali Shinde, learned A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 assisted by Mr.Thombre, learned counsel for complainant. 2. This is an application preferred by applicants seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest under C.R. No.22/2010 registered with Gangakhed police 2 station, Dist.Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. 3. It appears that offence has been registered on the report lodged by complainant namely Pramod Shriram Mhaske on 27.01.2010 alleging that he is resident of Gangakhed and earlier he had sought information about statue of Dr.Ambedkar under Right to Information Act, but same was not given to him, and therefore, he had done hunger strike in that respect. It is also alleged that on the date of incident i.e. on 27th January, 2010 at about 01.30 p.m., he had been to the office of Municipal Council, Gangakhed and sought information, but he was given evasive reply. At about 5.45 p.m, on the said day, he received telephone call on his mobile no.9764121630 from mobile no.9689358219 pretending that person calling on mobile was Sanap and complainant was called near Tahsil office stating that, unless he comes there, his work would not be 3 done. Accordingly, the complainant went to Tahsil office and rang up to the mobile phone, which was received by him and the said mobile phone rang up in the pocket of Bandu Gutte. At this juncture, three persons asked the complainant (Tula Kashachi Mahiti Pahije re Mahara Tuji Lai Dadagiri Zali Kai Tu Kendre Sahebanchya Virodhat Jatos Ka) and accordingly, complainant was assaulted by wire and wooden stick by the said three assailants. Thereupon many persons assembled there but nobody intervened and relieved the complainant. Hence, assailants again threatened the complainant and assaulted him and also threatened him that if he approached the police station, he would be killed. Thereupon, the complainant went to police station and lodged the complaint, but again he was assaulted in the police station also. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint against three assailants, since they threatened to kill him and they also abused him on his caste. The said complaint also reflects the names of said three assailant (i) Bandu Gutte, (ii) Balu Mundhe (Bodyguard of Mr.Kendre i.e. applicant no.2 herein) and (iii) Bhendekar (Driver i.e. applicant no.1 herein). The complainant also 4 stated in the said complaint that, he belongs to Mahar caste and assailants belong to Vanjari community. 3. Apparently, it appears from the contents of the F.I.R. that complainant was assaulted by the aforesaid assailants including the applicants herein in presence of number of persons as well as they abused and assaulted the complainant in the police station also. It is also reflected from the contents of F.I.R. that complainant was assaulted by wire and wooden stick by the said assailants including applicants herein, and on perusal of the investigation papers, it appears that the said wire and stick were seized under spot panchanama. Moreover, there appears to be eye witnesses in respect of the occurrence of incident. Besides that, the complainant was injured in the said incident. Hence, apparently I am of the view that there is no false implication of applicants in the alleged crime. 4. It is also pointed out that five criminal cases are pending against applicant no.1 and three cases are pending against applicant no.2 and applicant nos.1 and 5 2 were not available for the purpose of investigation so far. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of applicant nos.1 and 2 is necessary for further progress of investigation in proper perspective. Hence, the present application preferred by applicant nos.1 and 2 deserves to be rejected. 5. In the result, present criminal application being sans merit, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri780.10