1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1313 OF 2010 Ambadas s/o Karbhari Thorat ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri K.T. Shirurkar, Advocate for the applicants Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 15th April, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. K.T. Shirurkar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest under C.R. No.I-48/2010, registered at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Santosh Uttamrao Bankar on 6.2.2010, alleging that on 6.2.2010, at about 6.30 p.m., co-accused Shivaji @ Shivnath Thorat abused the complainant under intoxication and, therefore, the complainant asked him not to abuse after consuming liquor free of cost and went to his aunt’s residence. Thereupon, Shivaji Thorat got wild and arrived there along with his father namely Karbhari Thorat, Ambadas Thorat, i.e. applicant herein, Shashikant Thorat, his brother; and Karbhari was armed with axe. Karbhari assaulted on his head by axe and others assaulted by fist blows, leg kicks and sticks, and thereby the complainant sustained injuries on his right hand and it got swelling. 4. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the other co-accused persons namely Karbhari, Shivnath @ Shivaji and Shashikant were arrested in the present Crime and they were enlarged on bail on 9.2.2010 and, therefore, submitted that present application is required to be allowed, The learned counsel for the applicant also urged that no specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant in the alleged occurrence of incident and, therefore also he deserves for anticipatory bail in the present application. 3 5. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the investigation is under progress and same has not been completed and there is necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant. It is also canvassed that there are eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident, who attributed specific role and overt act to the applicant in the occurrence of the incident, which apparently connects the applicant with the crime. The learned A.P.P. also submitted that the stick allegedly used by the applicant during the assault has been recovered. It is also pointed out by the learned A.P.P. that the applicant is absconding and he has not made available himself for the investigation and, therefore, present application be dismissed. 6. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, it is apparent from the contents of F.I.R. as well as statements of two eye witnesses, which were recorded during the course of investigation that there is no false implication of the applicant and specific role has been attributed to the applicant as well as overt act has been attributed to the applicant during the occurrence of the incident. Moreover, it also appears that the applicant has been absconding and has not made available himself for the purpose of investigation. Apparently, the offence is of serious nature and custodial interrogation of the 4 applicant is necessary. Hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, present application being sans merits, same stands dismissed. 8. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri1313.10