( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3212 OF 2010 Vikhar Ahamad Khan APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3265 OF 2010 Alikhan Moin Khan APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. A.M. Karad, advocate for the applicants. Smt. S.D. Shelke, APP for the respondent No.1/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 7th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. These are applications for anticipatory bail. ( 2 ) 2. The applicants allege that they are likely to be arrested in connection with crime No. 129/2010, registered at Nanalpeth Police Station, for offence punishable under section 307, 147, 148, 149 of the I.P. Code and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. The injured, by name, Kazi Jalaloddin lodged FIR alleging that on 23rd July, 2010 at about 8/8.30 p.m., he was intercepted on road while he was returning home. He noticed that there were 15/20 persons standing at the place. The present applicants asked him why in the noon time, he became arrogant and became leader by removing them. Both of them then caught hold up him from either side and main accused by name Mehmood Pathan assaulted by means of a katthi (scythe, which is used for cutting of sugarcane). He obstructed the blow of katthi by right hand and got injured. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that both the applicants are not involved in the alleged incident, but their names are implicated due to political rivalry. He would submit that the applicants are named in the FIR only because they are having social status and that the ( 3 ) complainant was having grudge against them. He submits that the arrest of the applicants is not required because the katthi is already recovered from main accused i.e. Mehmood Pathan. He has placed on record a certified copy of the remand yadi dated 27th August, 2008, in support of his argument that said Mehmood Pathan named two (2) accomplices by name Shaikh Salim and Shaikh Siraj. It is on basis of such recitals of the remand yadi that the learned advocate would seek directions under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to the applicants who are not named by the assailant i.e. Mehmood Pathan. He contended that there also a cross- complaint filed involving the informant in respect of assault on one Abdul Majid. He contended that the FIR is based on concocted allegations. 5. Perusal of the investigation papers, which were made available during the course of hearing, prima facie indicate that informant was found to bear incise wound on holler aspect of left palm and it was a grievous injury. In the opinion of Medical Officer, the injury was caused by sharp and cutting edge. Considering the size of injury, it can be gathered that the version of the informant about assault by means of katthi is prima facie corroborated. It appears from statement of ( 4 ) Shaikh Javed, Police Constable, B.No. 951, that on 23rd July, 2010, at about 8 p.m., there was exchange of hot words between the applicant - Vikhar Khan and one Naser. Thereafter, other persons gathered at the place and the police party attempted them to obstruct them. He narrated that Mehmood Pathan assaulted the informant - Kazi Jalaloddin during the melee by means of katti. His police statement further shows that subsequently, Majid Khan, who is a Municipal Councillor stated that he was also assaulted, but who assaulted him was not known. Obviously, said Majid Khan, the Municipal Councillor might have made afterthought complaint. Considering these aspects and immediate disclosure of the names of the applicants as the persons who had helped the informant, it is difficult to infer that they are likely to be humiliated due to the arrest or their arrest is without any reason. Their involvement in the alleged offence of assault is prima facie made out from the recitals of the FIR. The fact that the FIR was lodged in the same evening and injured Kazi Jalaloddin was examined at 9.05 p.m. after the assault, by the Medical Officer, go to show absence of manipulation, prima facie, in regard to implication of the applicants. Consequently, I am of the opinion that they are not required to be protected. ( 5 ) 6. In the result, both the applications are dismissed. 7. The observations made in this order be not considered in any other proceedings. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3212-3265-2010