1 CRI.APP.NO.1678/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2009. 1. Kakasaheb s/o Manohar Chavan. 2. Appasaheb s/o Manohar Chavan. ...Applicants. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents. ... Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.J.S.Gavane, APP for the respondents. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 7th July, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.31/2009 registered by Washi Police Station, Dist.Osmanabad. The applicants and others are charged under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 326, 324, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The other similarly placed accused are arrested and I am told that they are released on bail. The 2 CRI.APP.NO.1678/2009. incident took place on 25th of April, 2009 at village Eet. The applicant No.1 appears to be the leader of one party and is resident of village Eet. The complainant's group came from village Lanjeshwar. On perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the complainant's group from Lanjeshwar came to Eet initially with an intention to protect one of their party members who was assaulted by residents of village Eet, belonging to the party of the applicants. On arrival of 10 to 15 people from Lanjeshwar, a quarrel erupted which culminated into a large scale fight between two groups. Persons belonging to both the sides sustained injuries. One Sunil sustained injury on his head and the same is attributed to the applicant No.1 here. It is alleged that the applicant No.1 was armed with a sword and dealt a blow of the sword on the head of the Sunil. The applicant No.2 was also seen at the time of the incident and was seen with a weapon like sickle. Although, there is no clear material on record to show that the applicant No.2 is the author of any injury on the person of any of his adversaries, but none the less the presence of the applicants at the time of the incident is clearly shown. 3. Mr.Salunke,learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, asserted that taking advantage of the incident, since the applicants are leaders of their 3 CRI.APP.NO.1678/2009. group, the adversaries are trying to falsely implicate them. He also stated that the applicants, during the pendency of the bail application sincerely attended the police station as per the direction of the Court. He suggested that there is hardly any need for custodial interrogation of the applicants. 4. I am not inclined to accept the arguments of the applicants' Advocate & grant them anticipatory bail. It is clear from the contents of both the First Information Reports that an incident of rioting etc. took place at a public place during broad day light. Both the parties had enmity & they belonged to different political parties. The cause for enmity is the recent Parliamentary election. Both the parties took law in their hands. The applicants are the only accused, who some how, remained to be arrested. All others similarly placed were arrested and were released on bail, the applicants in my view can not escape the eventuality of arrest and other formalities. The application stands rejected. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.