1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3451 OF 2010 Devanand S/o Vishwanath Kharade ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for applicant. Mr. V.D. Godbharale, A.P.P. for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 7th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This is an application for bail. 2. The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No. I-12/2010 registered at Rajur Police Station, for the offence under Sections 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 r/w Section 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act. 3. The recitals of the F.I.R. Prima facie show that on 01.03.2010, the meeting was arranged at village Chawadi at village Tale where one Barku Chindu Bhangare and his wife ventilated grievances regarding certain matrimonial dispute. It was their grievance that Ranjanabai Popat Lote and Sangitabai Popat Lote were not cohabiting with their husbands in the matrimonial homes. 2 At the relevant time, both the women along with main accused, by name, Anil Shinde and the present applicant reached the place of meeting. The villagers inquired with those married girls whether they wanted to cohabit with respective husbands. Both of them stated that they were not willing to cohabit with the husband. The villagers demanded such statement of the married girls on stamp papers. They executed stamp papers as per the demand of the villagers. The villagers told them that the married girls should go back to the house of their respective husband for the purpose of cohabitation and thereafter, the stamps would be torn out. There took place some confusion when the question regarding son of Ranjana Lote was raised. The villagers suspected that Anil Shinde and the applicant were taking undue interest in the matrimonial matters pertaining to those two married girls. They objected and thereafter said Anil Shinde and the applicant allegedly abused the villagers and started threatening them. The villagers started ahead to assault them. The villagers chased Anil Shinde and the applicant, who were running to avoid the assault. At that time, Anil Shinde is said to have fired bullet from his Revolver. The villagers however avoided the bullet and caught hold Anil Shinde and applicant. 4. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the 3 learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers. 5. What appears from the record is that the villagers suspected that Anil Shinde and applicant were indulging into matrimonial dispute, and therefore, objected their acts. It is further clear, prima facie, that the villagers started giving chase to Anil Shinde and the applicant while both of them were running away from the place. The applicant was not armed with any weapon at the relevant time. There is nothing on record to show that he had assaulted any of the villager during the course of meeting pertaining to the issue about the restitution of conjugal rights of two married girls. The learned A.P.P. would submit that the applicant is involved in the several other crimes registered at Nigadi Police Station, Khadki Police Station, Manchar Police Sation and Bhadrakali Police Station under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. He would submit that the applicant is likely to terrorise the witnesses, if he is released on bail. Consequently, the learned A.P.P. urged for dismissal of the application. 6. So far as the present application is concerned, the only question is whether the applicant is involved in any serious crime and is prima facie guilty of commission of the offence punishable with imprisonment for life or penalty of death. As stated 4 before, the applicant was on the hells and wanted to flee from the place of village Chawadi when the villagers were annoyed with his indulgence in the matrimonial dispute. He was not armed with any weapon nor attempted to do any act, which could be regarded as offence punishable with imprisonment for life or death. His involvement in other offence registered at other police station can not be criteria to deny him bail in the present case. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing of Bail Bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Thousand) with solvent surety bond to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions at Sangamner and on condition that they shall not enter limits of Rajur Police Station including village Tale during pendency of the trial. He shall not make attempt to contact any of the prosecution witness nor shall make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri3451.10