1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1846 OF 2010 1 Shri Neelesh Bapusaheb Mane Deshmukh ) 2 Shri Satish Hanumantrao RanNavare )..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1847 OF 2010 1 Shri Bapu Kashinath Dangat ) 2 Shri Kishor Dhanaji Ghadage ) 3 Shri Ramchandra Pandarinath Solapur )..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ) W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1848 OF 2010 Shri Nivrutti Parshuram Magar )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondents ---- Mr. A.P. Mundargi Sr.Advocate i/by M.K.Kocharekar for the applicants. Smt. A. A. Mane APP for the State. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 13th April, 2010 2 PC 1 Since the applicants in all these applications are shown as accused in C.R.No.55 of 2010 registered by Akluj Police Station, Dist. Solapur, for alleged offences under Sections 302, 504, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC, all the applications can be conveniently disposed off by this common order. 2 The two applicants in Criminal Application No.1846 of 2010 are the persons by name Neelesh Bapusaheb ManeDeshmukh and Satish Hanumantrao Ranavare. They are both teachers in Ratnai Krishi Vidyalaya, Anandnagar. The applicants in Criminal Application No.1847/2010 are three peons who are working in the said institution and the applicant in Criminal Application No.1848/2010 is also a teacher in the said institution. 3 The incident in question where the deceased Satish Kokate was allegedly murdered occurred on 8.3.2010 at the Sayaji Water Park where the annual day of the said college was celebrated. The complainant Anil Kokate was a student of the college and he took the deceased and some other friends to attend the said function. On the way out of the function, they were accosted by lecturer Shri Nivrutti Parshuram Magar. The deceased and some other persons were found to have entered into the premises without any document of identification. The complainant informed his teachers that he had brought them along as they were relatives. As per the complaint, applicant nos.1 & 2 in Criminal Application No. 1846/2010 i.e. Neelesh Bapusaheb Mane Deshmukh and Satish Hanumantrao Rannavare along with others assaulted him. Satish thereafter managed to escape and ran towards the water park and jumped into the water. At this, applicant Nivrutti Magar in Criminal 3 Application No.1848/2010 is alleged to have instigated the peons to chase him and kill him by giving electric shock. Three peons followed, went to the water and later on his dead body was found. In the aforesaid circumstances and facts, I have perused the post mortem notes. In so far as alleged assault, I find that there are simple injuries such as black-eye with swelling, and contusion on the left side arm. There is no allegation that the applicants in Criminal Application No.1846/2010 instigated the alleged killing. These allegations are made only against Nivrutti Magar and the three peons who said to have gone in the electric boat. The offence against the applicants in Criminal Application No. 1846/2010 will be ultimately, depending upon the evidence led, may come down to Section 323 of IPC. The said offence is a bailable offence. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Criminal Application Nos.1847/2010 and 1848/2010. Therefore, Application No.1847/2010 and Application No.1848/2010 are rejected. 4 In so far as Criminal Application No.1846/2010 is concerned, in the event of the applicants in the said application being arrested, they will be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount subject to the condition that they will report to the Investigating officer once a week on every Monday till the filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter once a fortnight on 1st and 3rd Mondays of every month till the disposal of the trial. The further condition of the anticipatory bail is that they will remain present on all dates of their trial unless exempted. 5 Before parting with the matter, I would like to observe that this Court had directed all the accused to appear before the Sessions Court at the stage of hearing of their 4 anticipatory bail applications and had also granted them protection. The order of the Sessions Court indicates that the applicants filed a pursis saying that they were present in the morning but were not present where the matter was heard. This conduct of the applicants is most reprehensible. Never-the-less an attempt is made to deal with their applications on merits on the basis of the allegations against them. In view of such conduct, no time is granted to surrender in respect of applicants who flouted the orders of the Court. It is made clear that the observations made in this order will not come in the way of applicants in case they apply for regular bail and also in their trial. Applications stand disposed off. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 5