ABA-424-11==.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.424 OF 2011 Anil Kashiram Pawar ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Kalachowki Police Station, Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. Aabaad Ponda with Mr. Sanjay Udeshi with Mr. Mahesh Londhe, i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the Applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP, for the Respondent. The I.O. is present. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 20 TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the F.I.R. I have gone through the Medical Certificate in respect of the injuries sustained by the First Informant - Santosh Jadhav. The alleged incident took place in the meeting of residents with the Developer in the S.R.A. Scheme and in the presence of local leaders. It arose out of some quarrel and dispute that took place during the meeting. Undoubtedly, a specific role has been attributed to the present Applicant. Mr. Ponda, however, contended that, prima facie, the offence disclosed would not be one punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. He argued that the glass container, ABA-424-11==.sxw 2 Dixit by which the injury in question was allegedly caused, cannot be construed as a ‘dangerous weapon’. At this stage, I do not wish to express any opinion on this contention. However, interestingly, the Injury Report issued by the KEM Hospital shows that an injury described as ‘grievous’ has been mentioned at Sr. No.2, and this matter is visibly written by a different ink. Be that as it may, what however, needs to be observed is that all the other accused in this case, except one, have already been granted anticipatory bail, being Anticipatory Bail Application No.423 of 2011. 3. The learned APP contended that the case of the Applicant is different from the other who have been granted anticipatory bail, in as much as, the Applicant has some criminal antecedents. I find that two previous criminal cases are pending against the Applicant. 4. However, since all the other accused, except one in this case, have been granted anticipatory bail and since the accused in the cross case have also been granted bail, it would not be proper to treat the present Applicant very differently from those others for the purpose of bail. It appears that an accused in the cross case, i.e. member of the other group, was possessing a fire arm at the time of incident. 5. Moreover, the Applicant was already protected by an interim order for anticipatory bail passed on 20th May, 2011. The Investigating Officer agrees that the Applicant had attended the Police Station, as directed by the said order. ABA-424-11==.sxw 3 Dixit 6. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 7. The interim order for anticipatory bail passed on 20th May, 2011, is confirmed. 8. The Applicant shall, however, attend the Police Station everyday, between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., for a period of one week from tomorrow, and, thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]