1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2539/2010 (Indrasingh s/o Bakatsingh Girase vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Adv., for Shri A.B.Girase, Adv., for applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, APP for the respondent State. Mr. B.A.Shinde, Adv., h/f Mr.N.L.Choudhari, Adv., for original complainant. ... CORAM: A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE:14-7-2010 P.C.:- 1. By the present application the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest, in connection with Crime No.26/2010, registered in Sindhkheda Police Station, for certain offenses under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Atrocities Act. 2 2. Heard Counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for the respondent State and Counsel for original complainant. 3. It is contended across the Bar that the present applicant is implicated in the said offense due to political rivalry and series of offenses are registered against each other by two different groups headed by the complainant and his son who are complainants in Crime Nos.26/2010 and 24/2010 registered in the same Police Station; while one of the family member of the present applicant has registered offense in the same Police Station vide Crime No.25/2010. 4. Considered the submissions made across the Bar, perused the FIR, registered in Crime No. 26/2010 in which the applicant approached this Court, seeking anticipatory bail. From the perusal of all these three different FIRs, out of which Crime No.24/2010 was registered in respect of the incident that 3 occurred on 30th March, 2010, at 7 p.m. of which offense was registered at 11.00 p.m. The dispute arose between the complainant party and applicant party about completion of the work of construction of road which is granted in that area. From the allegations made against each other, it appears that, both the parties are claiming that they are the only persons who are taking care of the villagers in that village and none else. According to them, the concerned contractor, who is doing work of construction of the road, is not working it out properly and was questioned by the members of the applicant party i.e. present applicant and, due to that questioning on the part of the applicant party, quarrel took place between the son of the complainant in Crime No.26/2010 and other party and, on that basis Crime No.24/2010 was registered. Crime No.25/2010 and Crime No. 26/2010 are the offshoots of the 4 incident dt.31st March, 2010. The time of occurrence of the incident is 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. This incident was reported by the family member of the present applicant in the Police Station at 10.30 a.m. i.e. within an hour or so after occurrence of that incident. 5. As against this, the complainant in Crime No.26/2010, has reported the incident in Police Station on the very next day i.e. on 1st April, 2010 around 1605 hours about more than 30 hours after occurrence of the incident. From the place where the incident has occurred as demonstrated in Crime No.25/2010 and 26/2010 hardly there is any room for doubt that these are the offshoots of the same incident and whenever two Crimes are reported as offshoot of one incident, it is necessary to consider which party is aggressive party and whether there is correct narration of facts in the complaint lodged by the rival sides. It is to be 5 noted that during the incident the role which is attributed to the present applicant, who is a senior member, aged about 69 years, is that he was instigating other members to make assault on the complainant party. On minute perusal of the complaint, it reflects that while these assaults and abuse on caste was in progress, phone call was received from daughter in law of the complainant in Crime No.26/2010 that the physical condition of his son Kiran (complainant in Crime No.24/2010) is critical and hence he was rushed to the Civil Hospital, Dhule, and after considerable period, he lodged complaint which incident, demonstrated in the complaint supports the contention put forth by the Counsel that even though there is a free fight between two groups, for which Crime No.25/2010 and 26/2010 were registered, still, the fact remains that this incident took place at the place which is known as Chimthana, taluka Sindkheda. There is 6 outpost of Sindkheda Police Station in that Chimthana village itself. If son of the complainant was taking treatment in the same place and the incident is witnessed by number of other persons, care was required to be taken to see that incident is reported immediately at the outpost and not after a gap of 30 hours which suggests something which is required to be read in between the lines in the background of the political rivalry between the two groups which gives rise to exercise the discretion vested in this Court, to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. In view of this, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on pre-arrest bail but on following conditions. Hence, the order: ORDER (a) The application is allowed. In the event of arrest of applicant in Crime No.26/2010 registered in Sindkheda Police Station, he be released on bail on 7 furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount i.e. the order passed on 5th July, 2010 is continued and confirmed but to remain in force till filing of chargesheet. (b) The applicant to give attendance twice a week to Sindkheda Police Station i.e. on Monday and Friday of each week between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. till filing of chargesheet. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR ) JUDGE ... agp/2539-10crapl