1 cri3951.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3951 OF 2011 1. Kishor S/o Suresh Darekar 2. Bandu S/o Prabhakar Tawaskar ..Applicants -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ..... Mr. K.S. Bhore, Advocate for applicants Mr. D.R. Korde, APP for respondent ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 29th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose and heard the learned counsel for the respective parties finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest, in connection with C.R. No. 117/2011, registered at Tuljapur Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 2 cri3951.11 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by complainant namely; Parshuram Datta Londhe on 16th August, 2011, alleging that on 14.08.2011 at about 2.30 to 3.00 when the complainant was sitting on Panpati shop in Shukrawar Peth, co-accused Yuvraj Tavaskar and Nagesh Tavaskar arrived there and demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/-, which was allegedly lent to the complainant for his sister's marriage and also demanded the interest thereon and abused him and gave blow of glass bottle on the head of the complainant and thereby he sustained the injury. At that juncture, Atul Kadam intervened to relieve the complainant, but applicant no.1-Kishor Suresh Darekar and applicant no.2-Bandu Prabhakar Tavaskar arrived there suddenly and they assaulted them by fighter and rod on his body and the co-accused Govind Yuvraj Tavaskar and Akash Pawar gave threats to kill the complainant and Atul Kadam and uttered the humiliating words "Mangadya Mhardya" and thereafter gave threats to them and went 3 cri3951.11 away. Thereafter, the complainant and Atul Kadam were removed to the hospital for treatment. 4. The injury certificate pertaining to Atul Kadam discloses that he sustained two simple injuries but situs of the said injury is occipital region and parietal region i.e. vital part of the body. Moreover, the injury certificate pertaining to complainant Parashuram Londhe also discloses that he sustained two injuries one of them is simple but situs of both the injuries is on the parietal region i.e. vital part of the body. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants canvassed that cross complaint was filed by co-accused Yuvraj on 14.08.2011 under C.R. No. 116/2011 against the complainant and other co-accused persons and the complainant therein i.e. Yuvraj also sustained injuries during the occurrence of the incident. He also submitted that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant as a counter blast to the earlier complaint filed by the co-accused namely Yuvraj. The learned counsel for the applicants also 4 cri3951.11 submitted that considering the nature of the injuries, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been deleted in the present crime and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code has been incorporated therein. It is further submitted that the contents of the F.I.R. do not make it clear, as to which person the alleged utterances on the caste were made at the place of incident. 6. However, having comprehensive view of the matter, it is apparent that the names of the applicants have been reflected in the F.I.R. and specific role/overt act has been attributed towards the applicants during the occurrence of the incident and the applicants have assaulted the complainant and Atul Kadam by fighter/rod on vital part of the body i.e. head. Although, the rod has been recovered, the fighter is yet to be recovered. Moreover, as the said utterances on the caste were made in the place within the public view and in the context of demand of money from the complainant, it is apparent that the said utterances of caste were made towards the complainant humiliating him, and therefore, there is prima facie case against 5 cri3951.11 applicants, and hence, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is imperative for the further progress in the investigation in proper manner and present application deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, the present application lacks merits, and hence, stands dismissed and the interim protection granted to the applicant no.1 stands vacated and the present application stands disposed of finally. 8. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE ga s/cri3951.11