IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLCIATION NO. 505/2008 Annu @ Anwar Asmad & 2 others vs. 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. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 11 h MARCH, 2008. Heard Shri P.A.Rajurkar, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Yengal, A.P.P. for respondent State. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Interim order in respect of applicant nos. 2 & 3 was passed on 7.2.2008. The observations therein were that the names of applicant nos. 2 & 3 were not mentioned as an assailants in the F.I.R. The case diary of the investigation has been produced by the learned A.P.P. It has shown that on 26.12.2007, the two witnesses who were accompanying the injured at the relevant time have made categorical statement that applicant no.1 had assaulted the injured/ complainant by knife and applicant nos. 2 & 3 had held the injured. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that though there are allegations against applicant no.1 regarding actual assault, the names of applicant nos. 2 & 3 was not mentioned by the complainant/injured at the time of lodging report to show their complicity in the offence. No doubt, it appears that the names of applicant nos. 2 & 3 are appearing in the supplementary statement of the complainant/ injured and also the statement of the eye- witnesses who were accompanying the complainant/injured, fact remains that there names are there. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicants 2 & 3 are alleged to be the co-accused only on the basis of supplementary statement, does not disentitle them from claiming anticipatory bail. In the circumstances of the case, it is obvious that applicant no.1 would not be entitled for anticipatory bail, but considering the case of applicant nos. 2 & 3, though, ex-facie, they seem to be entitled for anticipatory bail, the applicant no. 3 as he is being prosecuted for the offence under Sections 324 of 506 of the I.P.C. for earlier offences, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. Hence, only applicant no.2 would be entitled for anticipatory bail and the order in this respect needs to be confirmed. Accordingly, in the event of arrest of the applicant no.2 – Manish Ramdas Manekar, for the offences u/s 326, 504 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. and u/s 4/25 of the Arms Act, in Crime No. 267/2007 of P.S. City Kotwali, Amravati, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.Bond of Rs. 15,000/-, subject to conditions that he shall report at P.S. City Kotwali, Amravati, as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. The application in respect of applicant Nos. 1 & 3 stands rejected. Hamdast granted. JUDGE Rvj.