..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1803 OF 2008 Pratap Vitthal Phofle. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Mirza Yadullah, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th July, 2008. DATED : 11th July, 2008. DATED : 11th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.142 of 2008 of Shivaji Nagar police station. The said case is under Section 326 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was assaulted at the behest of the applicant. In the FIR also the complainant has expressed that he was assaulted at the behest of the applicant. In the said incident, the ..(2).. complainant has sustained fracture injury. In this view of the matter, the custody of the applicant would be necessary for proper investigation of the crime. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the coaccused has been granted bail. It is well settled that the considerations for bail and anticipatory bail are quite different as observed by the Apex Court in the case of State State State Vs. Anil Sharma Vs. Anil Sharma Vs. Anil Sharma reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) page 1997 SCC (Cri.) page 1997 SCC (Cri.) page 1039 1039 1039. Hence an accused cannot be granted anticipatory bail on the ground that the coaccused was granted bail. 5. Criminal Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)