1 CRI.APPLN.NO.5178/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5178/2010. (Ganpat Surja Rathod and Anr. Vs. The State of Mah.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Adv. for applicants; Mr.VH Dighe, APP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 11 th January, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) In crime No.196/2010 of Gondi Police station for offences under Sections 394, 326 r/w 34 of IPC, the accused/applicants seek bail in the event of their arrest, by exercise of powers in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 3) Learned Counsel submits, to give a different colour to the civil transaction of purchase of agricultural property by the accused/applicants from the complainant, there is false prosecution. Consequently, the accused deserve bail. 4) On the other hand, learned APP has, from the investigation papers, pointed Medical Certificate of the complainant, 2 CRI.APPLN.NO.5178/2010 illustrating that he has suffered two incised injuries, one below the nipple and other on fore-arm. 5) Keeping these injuries/ medical certificate in juxtaposition, and the F.I.R., I find, they are corroborating to the narration of the complainant. Even if the role of the applicant/accused Mohan is simply to be with the accused Ganpat, who stabbed the complainant, however, the act, prima facie, was in concert. The civil dispute of agricultural property may not by itself would be a sole ground to claim false implication. The record illustrate the role of the accused/applicants. 6) Consequently, no case for entertaining the pre-arrest bail application is made, application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/