1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2882 OF 2009 Bandu Murlidhar Prakashale & ors ........ Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure adv. for the Applicants Mr. Rajesh More APP. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 27th July, 2009. P. C.: 1. Apprehending arrest in C.R. 90/09 registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police station, Pandharpur, District Solapur for offence under sections 307, 326, 324, 147 to 149, 436, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with 34 of IPC and under section 135 of B.P. Act, the present application is moved claiming anticipatory bail. 2. Perusal of the injury certificates reveals that Sataywan Ghadge has sustained three grevious hurts so also Tanaji Ghadge had sustained three grevious hurts. Shivaji Ghadge has sustained one grevious hurt. The complainant’s family members were assaulted by the accused using sword by applicant no.1, axe by applicant no.2 and Satur (big knife) by applicant no.3. Thus the applicant nos. 1,2 and 3 are directly connected with the offence under sec. 307 and 326. The learned APP has pointed out that as yet the weapons used in the offence are not recovered. The record 2 clearly reveals that the relations of the applicants on one hand and the complainant’s family on the other hand are strained on account of civil dispute and frequent quarrels take place between them. In this view of the matter I am of the clear view that the applicant nos. 1. 2 and 3 are not entitled to be released by grant of anticipatory bail. However the role attributed to the applicant no.4 who is aged about 18 years so also the role attributed to applicant no.5 who is a girl aged about 19 years and the role attributed to the applicant no.6 Laxmibai who is a middle aged lady, it is seen that there is no allegation of use of weapons by either of the applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6. They are said to have beaten a family member of the complainant by using stick and fist blows. Having regard to the fact that the applicant nos.5, 6 are ladies and applicant no.4 who is aged about 18 years, have not used any weapon, they are entitled to be released on bail subject to the conditions stipulated in the operative part of the order. 3. In the result the application is partly allowed. The application of applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 stands rejected. The learned counsel for the applicants at this stage makes a statement that the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 will surrender to Pandharpur Taluka police station District Solapur on 29th July 2009 and seeks time till then. Accordingly time to surrender the applicant nos. 1,2 and 3 is granted till 29th July 2009. 4. Application moved by the applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 in C.R. No. 90/09 under sections 307, 326, 324, 147 to 149, 436, 3 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and u/sec. 135 of B.P.Act, they, he/she shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each together with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 shall comply with the conditions stipulated under section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. Application stands disposed of. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)