1appln-3246-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3246/2010 Gopichand Kundalik Padalkar .. .. .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra .. .. .. Respondent. Mr H.G. Wakshe, for the Applicant. Mr P. S. Hingorani, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 27th JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant, apprehending his arrest in C.R. No. 32/2010 registered with Aatpadi Police Station, Taluka Aatpadi, District Sangli, for the offence punishable under Sections 143,147,148, 149, 341, 324 and 395 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Reportedly, the investigation is still continuing. The alleged offence of dacoity along with rioting armed with deadly weapons was committed in the evening of 14.4.2010 and on the next day F.I.R. was given to the police. 2appln-3246-10 Allegations against the present applicant are that he along with seven other persons formed an unlawful assembly on the spot and apprehended the first informant while he was proceeding on his two wheeler. He was stopped and was assaulted with the help of sticks and fist blows. Main role is assigned to the co- accused who robbed the first informant of one gold chain and two gold finger rings. Abuses were also given to the complainant and he was threatened with dire consequences and of killing. According to the first informant, as detailed in the F.I.R. his sister by name Sau.Vaishali w/o Radhakrashna reached there and tried to intervene. However, she was also assaulted by the accused persons. Her statement is also recorded by the police. 3. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that another co-accused having some role has been granted anticipatory bail. However, the anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli vide order dated 24.6.2010. It is also submitted that other co-accused including the main accused who actually robbed the first informant, were released on regular bail after their some custody. 4. So far as the grant of anticipatory bail to the another co-accused having some role assigned as that of the present applicant, it appears that there was a sort of alibi established by the said applicant inasmuch as during the said period of the incident he was on duty as a bus conductor. 5. So far as the present applicant is concerned, his name is specifically mentioned in the F.I.R and also a specific role is assigned to him as to holding of stick and also assaulting the first informant along with other co-accused. Considering such prima facie material against the applicant it would not be in the 3appln-3246-10 fitness of situation to give discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail in favour of the present applicant and as such present application is disposed of with the following order:- ORDER: (a) Anticipatory bail application is rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J) LRS-PA