1 Appln 5211-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5211 OF 2010 Babaso alias Sunder Vilas Patil ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Shekhar A. Ingawale, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. . Since the applicant is alleged to be involved in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x)of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Prima facie, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the allegations about caste based abuses have been deliberately made in 2 Appln 5211-10 order to prevent applicant from getting anticipatory bail may not be correct. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the offence did not take place in public view will have to be decided at the trial. Therefore, application would have to be rejected. The applicant may, if so advised surrender before the appropriate Court and the Court would given the nature of allegations made, undoubtedly consider whether applicant's being in custody is necessary for the purpose of investigation or trial. 2. Criminal Application is disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)