1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 461 of 2010 Sunita @ Anita Sham Rathod ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Ms.Priyal G. Sarda for the applicant. Mrs.A.A. Mane APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 5th February 2010 P.C. 1. By this application, applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 195 of 2009 for an alleged offence punishable u/s.143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and section 4(25) of the Arms Act registered with Vijapur Naka Police station, District Solapur. 2. On 1st December 2009, Mr.Nagnath Ramchandra Rathod (for short “the complainant”) filed a First Information Report stating therein that his minor niece was abducted. On a suspicion that the family of the applicant was involved in the abduction. The complainant along with his family members went to the house of the applicant for enquiry whereupon the complainant was assaulted by a sword by Ram Habbu 2 Rathod a family member of the applicant. Another family member of the complainant was also assaulted. So also female members of the family of the complainant were assaulted by the applicant and other female members in her family. Consequently, an FIR was lodged and investigation is in progress. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in fact the complainant and his family members were assaulting the family members of the applicant and therefore, they were only exercising their right of private defence. They had also suffered injuries and they have also filed FIR against the complainant and his family members in the Police Station. This is the case of cross complaints and therefore pre- arrest bail should be granted. 4. The fact that there are cross complaints by itself cannot be a ground for grant for pre-arret bail. In fact that may militate against granting of pre-arrest bail. Police may need custody of both the groups for the purpose of ascertaining who were the aggressors and who were the defendors and the nature of the assault. Admittedly, there has been an assault. Deadly weapons like sword were used for the purpose of assault. In the circumstances, in my view, custodial interrogation appears necessary. Hence, the application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)