{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3890 OF 2009 Zuber Khan s/o Gulmohammad Khan Pathan & ors APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.H.F.Pawar, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.100/2009 registered with Chikalthana Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 143 to 149 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 27 of the Arms Act and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, carried out till today. {2} 3. It appears that the incident occurred on 28th August 2009 at about 8 to 8.30 a.m. Thereafter complaint came to be lodged by one Shaikh Aslam and on the basis of the said compliant the offence at CR No.100/2009 came to be registered. Papers of investigation show that an offence is also registered against the complainant and his associates in respect of the same incident, at CR No.99/2009. Perusal of the report u/s 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code show that the said offenses are registered in respect of an incident which had taken place on 28th August 2009 at 8.30 a.m. In the first case, i.e. in CR No.99/2000 the information was received by the police at about 2.15 p.m. whereas in second case i.e. CR No.100/2009 information was received by the police at 2.45 p.m. The complaint at CR No.100/2009 discloses that the applicant No.1 as armed with iron rod, applicant No.2 was having sword and iron rod in his hands while applicant No.3 was holding a sword. The allegations against applicants No.1 & 2 are that they have attacked the complainant with the iron rods, whereas allegations against applicant No.3 are that he has threatened the complainant on the point of sword. 4. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that the offence lodged against the complainant and his associates is first in point of time. From the facts disclosed in both the complaints it can safely be inferred that a scuffle took place between the two groups. However who is right and who is wrong or who was aggressive in {3} attacking, cannot be decided while deciding the bail application, however the same can be decided at the time of trial. However, fact remains that the papers of investigation prima facie indicate the involvement of the applicants and complainant. 5. On the basis of the papers of investigation it is rightly pointed out by the learned APP that though the incident occurred in the month of August 2009, yet the applicants are avoiding arrest till this date. It is urged by learned APP that applicant No.1 is history sheeter and there are criminal antecedents to his credit. In the premise, no case is made out to exercise discretion to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3890-09