1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1383/2009 (Sagar Babanrao Deshmukh and another vs. State of Mah.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 17 th APRIL, 2009 Cri.Appln.NO.1384/2004 Heard Shri Mardikar, Advocate, for the applicants. Filing of typed copy of F.I.R. is dispensed with for the present subject to condition that the same should be filed as and when directed by the court. Application disposed of. CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1383/2009 Heard Shri Mardikari, Advocate, for the applicants and Shri Thakare, APP, for the respondent State. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 2 vide Crime No. 39/2009 of Police Station Murtizapur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the injuries caused to the victim in the present case are the simple injuries and therefore, they are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on 1989(3) CRIMES 379; Babu Lal vs. State of Rajasthan; in support of his contention. On perusal of the case papers, it appears that the injuries caused to the victim Ravindra appear to be simple injuries, but one injury caused to him appears to be him on scalp i.e. vital part of the body. In the present case, the applicant no.2, as per F.I.R., is alleged to have possessed an Axe, whereas applicant no.1 is stated to have possessed the iron rod. It is informed that there is counter case arising out of the same incident in which the victim & others in the incident as alleged in this case are facing prosecution and they have been released on bail. 3 It is necessary to bear in mind that this is not a bail application, but it is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant desires to withdraw the application for applicant no.2. As regards applicant no.1, it is stated that there is general allegations against him in the F.I.R. No doubt, he had possessed iron rod, but there are no specific allegations of any overt act on his part, pointed out by the learned APP for respondent State. Considering his age, he would be entitled for anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest of the applicant no.1 for the offence punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, vide Crime No. 39/2009 of Police Station Murtizapur, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.Bond of Rs. 15,000/- subject to conditions that he shall attend Police Station Murtizapur, as and when directed by the I.O. for the purpose of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. 4 Application of applicant no.2 is disposed of as withdrawn. Application disposed of. Hamdast granted. Applicant No.2 is granted time to surrender as requested till 20th April, 2009. Meanwhile he should cooperate with the investigation, if necessary. JUDGE Rvjalit