1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4849 OF 2009 1. Shri Santosh Bhagwan More 2. Smt. Smita Santosh More ..... Applicants. V/s The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. N.V. Gangal for the applicants. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 4TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the complaint which is registered by Dahanu Police Station vide C.R. No. I 58 of 2009 dated 04/10/2009 for the offence punishable under sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. Applicant No.1 is the Corporator of Dahanu Municipal Council. Applicant No.2 is his wife. On 3/10/2009, it is the case of the applicants herein, that the original complainant entered the Gymnasium owned by applicant No.2 and made grievance about the music system which was installed in the said Gymnasium. There was an altercation and, according to the applicants, applicant No.2 was abused and assaulted by the complainant and, as a result, a complaint was lodged by the present applicant No.2 under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(1)(10) of Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 and under section 7(1)(d) of Civil Protection Act at about 11.45 a.m on 3/10/2009. Initially, N.C. Complaint was lodged by the original complainant against the applicants under sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and after the complainant learnt about the complaint filed by applicant No.2, as a counter-blast, present C.R. No. I 58 of 2009 was filed by the original complainant. 4. Counsel for the applicants submits that the second complaint filed by the complainant herein is an afterthought and is filed only as a counter-blast to the complaint filed by applicant No.2. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of 3 the applicants is not necessary and that they would cooperate with the Police. 5. It is an admitted position that second complaint against the present applicants has been filed almost after a lapse of 26 hours and, initially, only N.C. Complaint was registered by the original complainant. Taking into consideration these peculiar facts and circumstances, in my view, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. Applicant No.1 is an elected Corporator of Dahanu Municipal Council. Altercation had taken place between applicant No.2 and the original complainant in the morning at about 8.30 a.m. on 3/10/2009 over the music which was played in the Gymnasium owned by applicant No.2. Therefore, taking into consideration the complaint and the cross-complaint filed by the applicants and the original complainant, it is not necessary to detain the applicants in custody. 6. Applicants, therefore, in the event of their arrest in connection with C.R. No. I 58 of 2009 dated 04/10/2009 registered by Dahanu Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail in the sum of Rs 4 5000/- each with one or two sureties each in the like amount. Applicants however shall report to the concerned Police Station for about two days from 9/11/2009 between 11 a.m to 1 p.m and shall cooperate with the Police in the investigation of the case. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)