1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 345 OF 2011 (SUNIL MADHAV ADAGALE...VS..STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO MAHAGAON.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. C.S.Kaptan, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Ambrish Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondent. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2011. The applicant, who has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.98 of 2011, registered with Police Station, Mahagaon, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks pre-arrest bail. The incident occurred on 01.08.2011. Baburao Andagale (since deceased) was owning a land adjacent to the land of the applicant/ accused and others. They have a common boundary. While deceased, his wife and his mother were present in the field the applicant and his family members were also doing weeding operation in their piece of land. At about 5.00 p.m. there was an altercation between both the families over the damage caused to the boundary mark. It is alleged that the present applicant and his other family members, armed with deadly weapons, attacked Baburao and his mother. Baburao sustained injuries and lateron succumbed to the injuries. His mother was also injured. The wife of the deceased, who is an eyewitness, lodged first information report. As many as 9 injuries were sustained by the deceased. The cause of the death was head injury. The name of the present applicant is appearing in the first information report along with other 11 persons. 2 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire family had been roped in and even minors were not spared. It is pertinent to note that the present applicant is not minor. From the tenor of the first information report the probability of the presence of the applicant and he participating in the assault on the deceased Baburao appears probable. The plea of the applicant that he was busy in attending his blind father cannot be entertained at this stage. Further the contention that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant cannot be the ground to exercise discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that all the persons of the family of Prakash, including the applicant/ accused attacked the deceased with weapon/ stones, axe etc. Thus, in that light of the matter and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the application will have to be rejected. The application is rejected. JUDGE RR..