cra3060.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3060 OF 2011 1) Santosh s/o Venkat Panale, Age-25 years, Occu:Business & Agri., R/o-Harangul (BK), Tq. & Dist-Latur, 2) Madhukar s/o Anirudh Bastapure, Age-38 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Renapur, Tq-Renapur, Dist-Latur. ...APPLICANTS. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, (Through Police Inspector, M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur). ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.B.R. Warma Advocate for Applicants. Shri.B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for Respondent. Shri.A.P. Piratwad Advocate for Complainant. ... CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 1ST AUGUST, 2011 cra3060.11 2 PER COURT : 1. This Application is filed for anticipatory bail in C.R. No.98 of 2011 registered in M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, Dist-Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325, 326, 341, 504, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The papers of investigation were made available. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Harishchandra Panhale. He has a dispute with his brother Venkatrao Panhale. Incident took place on 11th June, 2011 after 22.30 hours. He has made allegations that when he was proceeding towards Harangul (Budruk), his motorcycle was intercepted by another motorcycle. He has made allegations that the persons from the other motorcycle and five more persons came to him with weapons like sticks and hockey sticks and they assaulted him by using said weapons. He has cra3060.11 3 contended that he could identify two persons like brother in law of his brother Venkatrao, who is Applicant No.2 and son of Venkatrao, who is Applicant No.1. He has contended that even when he begged for not assaulting him, he was assaulted by saying that they wanted to finish him. He has contended that when he was being assaulted, some persons like Balu Tighile came there, and after that the assailants ran away. 3. Advocate of the Applicants submitted that when the incident took place on 11th June, 2011, the crime came to be registered on 14th June, 2011 and this circumstance shows that there is possibility of false implication. It was submitted that in view of the spot where the incident allegedly took place, there could have been many eye witnesses, but there are no eye witnesses. The A.P.P. submitted that these circumstances cannot be considered at this stage. cra3060.11 4 4. The police papers include injury certificate prepared by Vivekanand Hospital, Latur. It shows that injured complainant was admitted in the hospital on 11th June, 2011 at 11.00 p.m. and he had given history of assault by some persons. His condition was serious and he had so many injuries, which includes fracture of left leg (upper third tibia fibula) and fracture of left forearm (fracture of left radius middle third). There was injury to head also. In view of the grievousness of the injuries, not much can be made out regarding the delay caused in giving of the report. The discharge card shows that complainant was indoor patient from 11th June, 2011 to 14th June, 2011. The Advocate for the Applicants submitted that there is possibility that the injuries were sustained in the accident, as they were sustained on the same side of the body. This submission also cannot be accepted at this stage. cra3060.11 5 5. There are allegations that many persons assaulted the complainant and most of them were not known to him. Only after the custodial interrogation, the other assailants can be traced. So, this Court holds that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The Criminal Application stands rejected. The interim relief already granted, stands vacated. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] asb/AUG11