1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2011 (Laxman Gopala Ugale .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri V.N. Patre, Advocate for the applicant. Shri M.A. Kadu, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 09TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. Heard. The applicant being apprehending his arrest in the FIR lodged against him at Risod Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code has approached this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. Shri V.N. Patre, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR lodged against the applicant is nothing else but an outcome of an enmity between the complainant and the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is falsely involved in the said crime. He submits that the complainant tried to misbehave with the daughter of the applicant and as the report was lodged against the complainant, the complainant to give a counter blast to the report lodged against him, lodged a false report against the applicant. On these grounds, the learned Counsel for the applicant prays for release of the applicant on anticipatory bail. Per contra, Shri M.A. Kadu, the learned APP submits that there is strong material against the applicant and the complainant was seriously injured. He further submits that the applicant is the main assailant and by using the weapon iron rod landed an assault on the head of the complainant. He, therefore, submits that the applicant is not entitled for the protection at the hands of this Court. 2 Heard Shri V.N. Patre, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri M.A. Kadu, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent/State and perused the reply filed by the learned APP. The FIR clearly reveals that the report was lodged on 06.08.2011 about the incident which took place on 04.08.2011. The complainant-Bhagwat Khandagale has specifically stated in his report that on 04.08.2011 in the evening the applicant apprehended the complainant on the way and with the help of iron rod, landed an assault on the head of the complainant. The complainant was seriously injured. The other accused persons also participated in the assault. It is further stated in the report that because of the injury, the vision of the complainant was impaired for some time. The discharge summary which is placed on recored also shows that the complainant received head injury and caused vision loss. It also reveals the history of diminish of vision of both eyes. The discharge summary further refers to MRI Scan, which reads, hemorrhagic contusion in (Lt) Medical temporo – Occipital Cortical Subcortical Region with temporo parietal Occipital SDH with thickness 3 mm. Acute bleed along (lt) Hotorical Leaflet and posterior salz. Though it is not in dispute that the complainant is now discharged and recovered, the fact remains that the serious injury was caused to the complainant on the vital part of the body i.e. head. The active involvement of the applicant is clearly spelt out from the FIR as well as the nature of the injury from the discharge summary. From the record, it is clear that there is prima faice material against the applicant. In my opinion, this is not a case where the applicant can be enlarged on anticipatory bail. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.