1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1273 OF 2010 Devidas s/o Kautik Patil & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Ms Asha Gore, Advocate with Shri D.L. Agarawal, Advocates for the applicants Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th April, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant Nos.1 and 2 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest under C.R. No.I-18/2010, registered at Pachora Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the 2 complaint lodged by one Pandharinath Tukaram Patil, who is an S.T. bus driver, on 10.3.2010, alleging that, he was driver on S.T. bus No.MH-20-D/5961 on 10.3.2010 and at about 9.20 a.m., he along with conductor started the said bus from Pachora Bus Stand, carrying 10 to 12 passengers therein. Accordingly, after crossing Jargaon Chaufuli, suddenly one car bearing No,MH-19/3310 stopped in front of the said bus and two persons got down therefrom and threatened the passengers in the S.T. bus to get down and one of them had broken the windowspanes of the S.T. bus by stick and thereby caused damage to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the S.T. bus belonging to Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The complainant also gave the description of the said two persons in the complaint. 4. It appears from the investigation papers that the statements of the witnesses have been recorded and it transpired during the investigation that the applicants were those to unknown persons. Even the statement of eye witness reflects the names of the applicants. Moreover, it is also pointed out that, similar type of other offences i.e. C.R. No.96/2009 and 97/2009 have been registered against the applicants and other persons and it is submitted that the applicant No.1 is President of Chhava organisation whereas applicant No.2 is member thereof. 3 5, Considering the seriousness of the offence and nature and gravity thereof, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. Besides that, apparently there is no question of any false implication of the applicants in the alleged offence. Hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 6. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands rejected. 7. Needless to say that the observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri1273.10