1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2635 of 2010 (Vishnu Motiram Rathod and others vs. State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.Smt.S.S.Jadhav, Adv., h/f Mr.V.P.Latange & Mr.B.S.Shinde, Advocates for the applicant. Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for the respondent. ... CORAM: A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE:21-7-2010 P.C.:- 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.110/2010, registered at Pathri Police Station of district Parbhani for the alleged offense under Sections 147 to 149, 326, 324, 323 & 504 of IPC. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Also perused papers of investigation in 2 connection with the said offense. Perusal of the papers of investigation discloses that the applicant, the injured complainant and his family members are neighbours and are residing in Anand Nagar Tanda situated in the jurisdiction of Pathri Police Station of district Parbhani. They are in joint possession of the land locally known as BARAD. It appears, in the morning of 22nd June, 2010, dispute took place between the complainant party and the applicant party over the labours of the complainant who lifted rubble from the land in joint possession for which some dispute arose between the first applicant and son of the complainant for which complaint was lodged in the morning in Police Station. In the evening, family of the applicants had been to the residence of the complainant to question as to why the complaint was lodged in the Police Station. On the spur of the moment, it appears, quarrel took place between both the groups 3 and in that quarrel, first applicant with the weapon (sickle) in his hand, assaulted on the head of Deelip while the third applicant also assaulted with the stick in his hand on the head of Deelip. Second applicant assaulted on the wife of the complainant and during this scuffle, gold ring in the hand of the complainant was displaced. Injured was admitted in the hospital and, later on, offense came to be registered against these applicants and their other family members. 3. It is contended across the Bar on behalf of the applicant that this is the dispute between neighbours in which family members of the applicant, namely, one Kalubai, also sustained fracture injury on her wrist for which she was treated initially in the private hospital and, later on, treated in the Government Medical College at Nanded. After she was discharged from the hospital, she also lodged complaint against the 4 complainant party of which offense was registered in Pathri Police Station. During the course of submissions across the Bar, Counsel for the applicants also placed on record photo copy of the complaint lodged by the said Kalubai as well as papers of medical treatment provided to her. 4. While considering these submissions, one fact which is required to be noted is that the photo copy of the medical treatment provided to Kalubai by Shrinivas Orthopaedic Nursing Home at Nanded indicate the earlier date of issuance of this document, which appear to be changed and then photo copy is prepared. There is reference of history of assault three days back and the date, which is altered, appears to be altered from 23rd to 25th. This Court need not comment; whether suitable changes were made in the original document to match the incident for which complaint was lodged by Kalubai as the original document from which photo 5 copy is prepared is not before the Court but, it appears that there was fight between the two groups for which rival complaints are lodged. In such situation, it is necessary for the Court to consider which party is aggressive. 5. Considering the papers of medical examination of Deelip produced by the learned A.P.P. along with the papers of investigation, it is disclosed that Deelip and Prayagbai; both were taken to the hospital within one hour i.e. in the Rural Hospital at Parbhani. After initial treatment was provided to the Deelip, for further treatment he was referred to the Civil Hospital at Parbhani where he was treated for considerable period. This indicates that the applicants party was aggressive party in the said scuffle and the role played by Vishnu, first applicant and Motiram, last applicant, in assaulting Deelip, is major while the role played by Sumit is minor. 6 In view of this, discretion is to be exercised related to the act of Sumit which cannot be exercised about the role attributed to Vishnu, first applicant and Motiram, the third applicant. In view of this, application deserves for the following order: ORDER (a) Application is partly allowed. (b) Application in respect of applicant No.1 Vishnu and applicant no.3 Motiram hereby stands rejected. (c) Application in respect of applicant no.2 Sumit is allowed. In the event of his arrest, in connection with Crime No.110/2010, registered in Pathri Police Station, dist.Parbhani, he be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and, on executing P.R. bond in the like amount. (d) It is made clear that 7 this protection is granted till filing of the chargesheet. (e) It is also further made clear that the observations made are prima facie observations on the basis of papers of investigation placed in my hand at the time of hearing of this application. Learned trial Judge shall not be influenced with these observations if regular bail application is moved by the applicants whose bail application is rejected by this Court. (A.V.POTDAR ) JUDGE ... agp/2635-10crapl