1 APPLN-136-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.136 OF 2011 Suresh Chandrakant Bagal. .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. .... Mr.Ujwal R. Agandsurve, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 22nd MARCH, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the Applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.110 of 2010 registered at Kurduwadi Police Station, District – Solapur, registered on 19th June, 2010. 2. On 19th June, 2010 there was a sort of riot like situation created by almost more than 35 persons armed with deadly weapons like sword, sticks etc. The incident happened at about 8:00 p.m. at night. There was ransacking of some pan­bidi shop of one of the witnesses. The first informant and other three witnesses were assaulted by the mob. The assault was by means of sword and by fist and kick blows. 2 APPLN-136-11 3. Name of the present Applicant, who is yet to be arrested in the matter, was taken by four injured eye witnesses. His name is also mentioned in the first information report, which was immediately lodged. Out of total 34 known accused and some unknown accused persons, 16 accused were arrested and after their initial remand they were granted bail. All along since the date of offence for last eight months, the present Applicant herein could not be arrested. In the meantime, he applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. However, his prayer was rejected. Even the interim relief was not claimed before the Sessions Court. 4. During the arguments, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that apart from the name of the Applicant in the First Information Report and in the statements of four eye witnesses, no specific role is assigned to the Applicant as to use of any specific weapon ­ much less a sword. It is further submitted that injury certificates. produced in the investigation papers, do not show that the injuries were of severe nature. It is further submitted that out of political rivalry the present Applicant is falsely implicated and there are false allegations against him as to the mob committing the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste 3 APPLN-136-11 & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also punishable under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 5. Considering the allegations against the Applicant and his name taken by all the four eye witnesses, though a specific role is not assigned to the present applicant, his name is mentioned as one of the member of unlawful assembly which was armed with deadly weapon. Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is also attracted. Infact, Sections 395, 427, 504, 506 r/w. 509 of IPC are also charged against the Applicant and other accused persons. Considering these circumstances, it is not in the fitness of the situation to grant pre­ arrest bail to the Applicant. Hence, the order : :: O R D E R :: [I] Criminal Application No.136 of 2011 for anticipatory bail stands rejected. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD