1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.383 OF 2011 Mr. Gulshan Arit Tese & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. H. Mundargi for applicant. Mr. Prashant Maggu, Advocate for respondent. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 11th July, 2011 P.C. 1. The applicants herein file this second application for anticipatory bail. The first application was disposed off by the Sessions Court by its order dated 21st April 2011. Applicant no.1 is the President of an organsation by name Hatkesh Ekta Mahila Mandal . The “ ” organisation purports to deal with issues relating to the welfare of women. Applicant no.2 works as a maid in the house of applicant no.1. Applicant no.3 is claims to be a social worker and President 2 of Chhava Sanghatana, applicant no.4 is a lawyer. 2. The complainant, in connection with his business as an Estate Agent had became acquainted with applicant nos. 1 to 3. He alleges in his complaint that on 19th March 2010 at about 2 pm., the applicants no. 1 and 4 visited his office and demanded him to close down his office with threats of dire consequences. On the same day, at about 10 pm., the applicants along with other accused and some more persons returned to the office premises and assaulted the complainants with sticks and handblows. The complainant and another person sustained fracture injuries. The complainant in addition suffered acute renal injury on account of assault. 3. The Sessions Court rejected the 1st application for bail observing that the applicants do not dispute their presence at the place of the incident on it s date and time. It was however, their claim that ’ they had visited the office of the complainant only for the purpose of protesting against his conduct of misbehaving with a woman by name Razia Shaikh, who has filed complaint with Kashimira Police Station under Section 354 Indian Penal Code against the complainant. This claim did not find favour with the Sessions Court which observed in its order that in order to register their protest, there was no need for the applicants to carry sticks and hockey 3 sticks with them. The applicants were admittedly present at the place and time of the incident. The record shows that they were carrying sticks. There was an assault on the complainant and another person resulting into grievous injuries. Hence, in my opinion this is not the case for this court to exercise its extraordinary power to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected. Learned APP also points out that the applicants herein particularly applicant no.1, has criminal antecedents with several complaints, cognizable and non cognizable, filed against him. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)