1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4189 OF 2008 SARDAR MAHINDER SINGH AND ORS -vs- State of Maharashtra & another. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1785 OF Shri Rohit Deo, Advocate for applicant. Shri Doifode, APP for respondent-State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2008. This is an application for anticipatory bail by three persons, who have alleged to have participated in the assault of Jaswindersingh. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the FIR does not mention that the assailants i.e. Mahinder Singh, Tejpal Singh and Karamjeet Singh had used any iron rod. It mentions the use of only stick, as was noted by the Sessions Judge. Considering the nature of assault and the applicants had been appearing before the Investigating Officer during the pendency of bail application before the Sessions Judge, he submitted that there is no case for refusal of bail to the applicants. The reply filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, indicates that there was very serious injury caused to Jaswinder Singh and there is fracture of 2 cranium. The learned APP made available case diary for my perusal, which shows that injury to be of a grievous nature. The fact that the victim could be discharged after conservative treatment does not alter the fact that he had suffered the fracture of cranium. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant about mention of only lathi in the FIR is irrelevant. Since, in the statement of the victim recorded on the very next day of the incident use of iron rod is specifically mentioned. In view of this, the applicants are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The applicant No.1 was in need of bypass surgery and was released on bail by interim order dated 2nd December, 2008. In view of his health condition that order would have to be maintained. The application insofar as applicants no. 2 & 3 are concerned, is rejected and the interim order in relation to applicant no.1, passed on 2nd December, 2008, is confirmed. JUDGE andurkar.