1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4566 OF 2009 Ashok s/o Vitthal Khandekar & anr. ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri M.V.Ghadge, advocate for the applicants Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 8th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri M.V.Ghadge, advocate for the applicants and Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 This is an application for anticipatory bail preferred by applicant nos. 1 and 2 herein apprehending their arrest under CR No. I-135 of 2009, registered at M.I.D.C. police station, Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37 (1)(3) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant Chhaburao Ranuji Khandekar on 22.9.2009 in respect of the occurrence of the incident on 21.9.2009 at about 6.00 p.m., alleging that applicant no. 1 Ashok assaulted the complainant by iron rod and also by fight below his head and on his back, as well as applicant no.2 Kacharu assaulted him by sword as well as threatened him, thereby complainant sustained injuries. 4 Learned counsel for the applicants urged that it was a domestic fight and the applicants herein had also lodged complaint against the complainant herein under CR No. 134 of 2009, which is earlier complaint lodged on 21.9.2009; whereas the complaint lodged by the complainant herein is later in time, which was lodged on 22.9.2009 under CR No. 135 of 2009. Learned counsel for the applicants canvassed that the other accused, except in the present application, have been enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the complainant in the present first information report has the criminal antecedents, whereas the applicants herein have no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the applicants herein have suffered grievous injuries during the occurrence of the incident. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants urged that the applicants also are entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 5 Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that there is an eye witness, who was injured during the 3 occurrence of the incident namely, Rohidas, and sustained grievous injuries. He also submitted that iron rod and the sword i.e. the incriminating articles, which were used during the occurrence of the incident, are yet to be recovered. He, therefore, submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. It is further submitted that there is no question of false implication of the applicants, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 6 On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the parties, it is apparent that there was free fight between two groups on account of domestic quarrels and the outcome thereof was lodging of first information report bearing no. 134 of 2009 on 21.9.2009 by the applicants herein; whereas the first information report in question in the present application bearing No. 135 of 2009 was lodged on 22.9.2009. 7 On perusal of the statement of the eye witness, namely Rohidas, it is seen that he was assaulted by applicant no.1 Ashok by iron rod, and applicant no.2 Kacharu assaulted him by sword on his head, and the injury certificate shows that Rohidas sustained head injury which was grievous along with other injuries. Moreover, the first information report in the present application also discloses that applicant no.1 Ashok assaulted the complainant Chhaburao by way of iron rod and fight below his head and applicant no.2 Kacharu assaulted him by sword. Admittedly the iron rod and the sword i.e. the 4 incriminating weapons are yet to be recovered. The investigation is still under progress and same has not been completed. Besides that, it is also apparent that there is no question of any false implication of the applicants in the present offence. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 8 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 4566 of 2009 stands dismissed. 9 The above observations are prima facie and 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. dbm/crap4566.09