IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.593 OF 2009 Gopal @ Tatya Pandurang Sarang ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri S.Y. Katkade and V. Nirmala for Applicant Shri Rajesh More, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 16TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the Applicant against whom the complaint has been lodged for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 326, 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is alleged that the Applicant and others had assaulted the Complainant. The allegation is made by the Complainant against the Applicant is that the Applicant had assaulted him with an iron rod. The other accused have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, however, the application filed by the Applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that though it is stated that the Applicant has given a blow on the back of the complainant with an iron rod, the injury certificate does not disclose that the injury was caused to the back of the Complainant. He submitted that on the ground of parity, the present Applicant also ought to have been granted anticipatory bail. He submitted that the only reason why his application is rejected by the Sessions Court was that the iron rod was to be recovered at the instance of the present Applicant. He submitted that since the injury certificate does not support the statement of the Complainant, the Applicant ought to have been granted the anticipatory bail. He submitted that because the complaint had been filed by the present Applicant and he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. The submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant cannot be accepted. The Sessions Court, in turn, has clearly stated that the case of the Applicant is separable from others on account of the role, which is attributed by the Complainant to the present Applicant. The Sessions Court also has taken into consideration the medical certificate which shows that the complainant sustained fracture over elbow and his eye was blackened. 6. Taking into consideration the allegations made against the present Applicant, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 7. The application for anticipatory bail is rejected. The Applicant may approach for regular bail. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks one week's time to surrender before the appropriate Court. The Applicant shall surrender before the appropriate Court on 24th February, 2009 from today. 9. Application is rejected and the application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.