1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2539 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2693/2009 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mrs.Sadhana S.Jadhav and Mr. R.T.Deshmukh, Adv., for the respective applicants. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, AGP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 3/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. R.T.Deshmukh, Counsel for the applicant (original complainant). He wants to assist the learned A.P.P. in the matter. I do not see any impediment to permit him to assist. Consequently, such request is allowed. Application disposed of. 2. Heard learned Counsel extensively. The accused/applicants have urged to release them on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.139/2009, registered at Kaij Police Station, for an offence under Sections 326, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504, 342 of IPC. 2 3. The Counsel for the accused/applicant informs that the applicants herein are sons of Ashruba who is real brother of complainant Devidas. The incident is dt.26.6.2009 and FIR is dt. 27.6.2009. The delay is not explained. Thirdly, the nature of injuries suffered by Devidas were basically simple and in subsequent certificate, they have been shown as grievous. The list annexed to the representation made at the behest of the Sarpanch of the village to the Tehsildar and authorities, showing signatures of several villagers, is a list of seeking benefits by the proposed persons pursuant to Government Scheme having put such signatures on 26th Jan.,2009. 4. The contention that the list was dt.26th Jan.,2009, is basically, prima facie, incorrect, as the application under signature of Sarpanch dt. 29.6.2009 was addressed to Police Inspector, Police Station, Kaij, and its copy was given to the learned Tehsildar. The application itself indicates that there was a general body meeting of the villagers for the incident dt.26.6.2009. This has been rather highlighted in the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, Kaij, dt.4.7.2009, who also endorsed having received representation from the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Mundewadi and others. At this stage it is difficult to accede that the representation is signed by the 3 persons for some benefits dt.26th Jan.,2009. 5. The contention of two days delay is properly explained. The victim was admitted at Rural Hospital at Kaij on 26.6.2009 based on the injury suffered by him. The gravity made the relatives and injured to immediately shift at Government hospital, Ambejogai, where the Police attached to Kaij Police Station recorded his statement. It could not be expected of the victim complainant first to have approached the Police oblivious to the aggravated form of injuries, to avoid the further accusations of delay in lodging the FIR. 6. The inter se relations are not in controversy. It may be that the complainant has retired from Police Department but that by itself will not be a stigma to be coined against him. He, as an ordinary citizen, can enjoy life peacefully which could not have been challenged by the accused/applicants. The record also rebels against the accused/applicants as the learned A.P.P. informs that there are at least 8 to 10 cases of serious nature against the applicants. Taking survey of the case, no case for grant of anticipatory bail. Application rejected. 4 The observations relate, for the purposes of present application only. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/2539-09crapl