1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4844 OF 2009 Vinod Prakash Lavate ....Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Mr.J. Shekhar i/b. Shri J. Shekhar and Co. for Applicant Shri H.J. Dedhia- APP for State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 5TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.139 of 2009 registered with Pandharpur Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 307, 341, 147 to 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that a complaint was lodged by one Sajjan Arjun Gund on 12.5.2009 against the Applicant and other 6 co-accused in which it is alleged that while he was cultivating his land, the Applicant and other accused entered in the disputed land and abused and assaulted the Complainant and his family members 2 with swords, sickle and axe. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that there was a dispute regarding the land which was being cultivated by the Complainant and this land was purchased by one Janardhan Gund from some of the family members of the co-accused Datta Chavan. It is submitted that the Applicant is neither party to the civil dispute which is pending in the Court since 1995 nor he concerned with the Chavan Family nor does he have any interest in the said land. He submitted that now the chargesheet is filed and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary. He further invited my attention to the statement of the Complainant wherein he had mentioned that the Applicant had assaulted one Maruti Gund with a sword. He then invited my attention to the statement of Maruti Gund and in his statement, he mentioned the name of Devaibai Bhosale, who had assaulted him with sickle. He submitted that the medical evidence also did not support the statement of the witnesses. He further submitted that there were several discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses. He further submitted that since chargesheet has been filed, further custodial interrogation is not necessary. 5. I am unable to accept the submission made by the 3 learned Counsel for the Applicant. At this stage the Court is not expected to weigh and shift the evidence which is likely to be adduced by the prosecution. The Court is expected to examine whether the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail or not. In the present case, the Applicant's name is mentioned in the First Information Report. Maruti Gund also in his statement has mentioned his name and has mentioned that his opponents viz. Sajjan Chavan, Dattaji Chavan, Devaibai Bhosale, Vino etc. were carrying sickle, swords and axe and had entered in his land and thereafter assaulted him. The said material, therefore, indicates that the Applicant was present on the spot when the said offence had took place and also carrying sickle weapon in his hand. 6. In view of the statement made by the Complainant and other witnesses, at this stage, it is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appliance and this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Therefore, anticipatory bail application is rejected. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)