[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2453 OF 2008 Kumari Rupali Chandrashekhar Patil ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Vikash Shivarkar and Debjyoti Talulekar Advocate for Applicant Mr.S.R.Borulkar PP with Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 23, 2008 DATE : JULY 23, 2008 DATE : JULY 23, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No. 300 of 2008 of Kothrud Police Station Pune. The said case is under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 452, 427, 307, 354 of IPC. 3. The applicant is Vice President of Maharashtra Nav-Nirman Sena. The complainant is Secretary of Maharashtra Institute of Technology. It is the [-2-] case of the complainant that applicant along with about 30 others had come to the office of the complainant. They sought admission for students in the said Institute. The complainant has stated that all of them were carrying flags and they were shouting slogans stating that students of other States should not be given admission. The prosecution case is that two persons were injured in the incident i.e. the complainant Karuna Gole and Mr.Bodar. Both the persons were injured due to assault by iron chairs. Extensive damage was caused to the property of the Institute. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the statement of Mr.Lolage wherein he has stated that the present applicant had instigated the mob that they should damage the furniture in the office and on her instigation furniture, camera, TV, windows etc. came to be damaged by the mob. Looking to the above fact, it is seen that the applicant has played a major role in the incident. Even though the applicant is a lady, I do not think that is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The material on record in respect of applicant is such as to point out an [-3-] accusing finger towards him. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Directorate of Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997 Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997 Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 SCC (Cri.) 978 SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. Application is rejected and is disposed of accordingly. On the oral application, time is granted till 29.7.2008 to the applicant to surrender. The learned advocate for the applicant states that he will give notice to the Investigating Agency as to when the applicant will surrender. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]