1ab-grant-2800- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.2800/2010 Vishwas S.Shirtode and anr v. State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr Ashok Mundargi, Sr Counsel i/by D.S.Shinde, for the applicant. Mr P.S.Hingorani, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 16TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicants apprehending their arrest in CR No.38 of 2010 registered with Lonand Police Station, District Satara. 2. Allegations against the applicants are that on 16.5.2010 in the evening they along with their associates holding knife, dagger and sticks assaulted the complainant and his brother and other relatives when the complainant and his relatives were proceeding in a marriage procession along the road. Allegedly, this assault was on account of some previous enmity concerning the licence of a Tady shop. A specific role is attributed to the present applicants as to holding a knife and dagger and inflicting one injury on one Sagar, brother of the complainant, causing severe incised wounds on the chest of Sagar. Allegations against the co-accused are that they used sticks to assault the complainant and other relatives. Also the 2ab-grant-2800- allegations are such that the applicants and their associates, totally nine persons or so, created atmosphere of terror, and riot like situation and dispersed the said marriage ceremony procession and gave threats to the persons in the said procession of dire consequences. Even allegedly threats were given to the persons, who were brought in the procession, who were members of some local band party. 3. During the arguments, learned Senior Counsel brought attention of this Court towards the nature of injuries specifically sustained by the complainant and other two persons. Apparently, such injuries are simple or opined by the Primary Health Center's Doctor as “may be grievous.” Attention of this Court is also drawn towards injury certificate for the injuries sustained by Sagar. Two injuries at Sr.Nos. 3 and 4 sustained by Sagar are shown as “grievous injuries” caused by sharp edge weapon, and they are incised wounds over chest, left side, one below clavicle and another one near left nipple. It is further argued, still pointing out such grievous injuries, that said Sagar was not so severely injured and was in fact moving around. In order to substantiate this argument, attention of this Court is drawn towards answer given by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Lonand, District Satara dated 9.1.2010. Curiously enough, he is the same Medical Officer who gave answer to the query raised under the Right to Information Act to one lawyer and is the same Medical Officer who apparently gave the medical certificates including the certificate of injured Sagar. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant pointed out that in the answer given by the said Medical Officer on 9.6.2010 at Sr.No.3 there is specific mention that injuries to said patient Sagar were not serious and as such there was no need for further treatment and he was treated as out door patient in the said Primary Health Center. It is further pointed out to this Court that at serial No.4 in the said reply there is specific mention that 3ab-grant-2800- said patient was not admitted as indoor patient and as such there was no question of discharge. 4. In the opinion of this Court, considering the injury certificate at page No.18, attached to the application for bail and which is for the injured Sagar, there are definitely two incised wounds, mentioned as grievous. Description of the injuries in the said medical certificate and opinion given by the same doctor while answering the query under the Right to Information Act are not in consonance with each other. Either way, it is serious and required to be taken care of by the Investigating Officer by thorough investigation even with the Medical Officer as to whether the injuries were “serious” or “not serious”. In either way, it will be harmful to the parties, either to the complainant or to the accused. All the same, the question is to be dealt with during continuation of the investigation as it is still incomplete. 5. As mentioned above, there is sufficient, prima facie, material against the present applicants who are the main accused Nos.1 and 2 so as not to view the present application to grant any relief as prayed. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of by the following order: ORDER 1. Criminal Application No.2800/2010 stands dismissed. 2. The I.O., to take appropriate action as per the observations made in paragraph No.4 of this order. 3. Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J) 4ab-grant-2800-