1 criap2408-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2408 OF 2011 1] Nitin S/o Shivajirao Shinde. 2] Shivajirao Baburao Shinde .. APPLICANTS Vs The State of Maha. .. RESPONDENT ... Shri G.R.Naik Thigle,Adv. for applicants. Shri N.H.Borade,APP for R-State. ... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 07/07/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] This application is for anticipatory bail in Crime No.88/11 registered in Nagar Taluka police station, Dist.Ahmednagar U/s 143,147,148,149,326,337,323,504 & 506 of I.P.C. r.w. 37(1) and 135 of Bombay Police Act. Papers of investigation were made available by A.P.P. Both sides are heard. 2] Advocate for applicants submitted that cross complaint has 2 criap2408-11 been made by side of the complainant. That came to be registered subsequently and so not much of relevance. 3] Crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Anil Tanpure who is President of Tantamukti committee of village Pargaon, Tahsil and District Ahmednagar. Allegations are made that due to a four wheeler dumper of Shivaji Shinde, there was damage caused to building of village Gymnasium and so complainant had called Shivaji Shinde, Nitin Shinde and Rameshwar Shinde and at that time, there was quarrel between the complainant and these 3 persons. Allegations are made that incident took place on 26/5/11, after 5.30 p.m. when complainant and his wife were present in his house. Present applicant no.1, his father and other persons came there and they picked up quarrel. Allegations are made that he was assaulted by using stick, wooden plank etc. by applicants. Allegations are made that he shouted for help and then some relatives came for his help and they were also assaulted by applicant and other persons. 4] Advocate of the applicant submitted that applicant no.1 is employed in police department and he was on duty on the date of the incident and he was doing patrolling duty. He has produced some record like copy of movement register of the vehicle to which he was attached and copy of attendance register. Entries show that there is over-writing on the dates. There is clear possibility that there is 3 criap2408-11 tampering with the movement register. A.P.P. is to take authenticate copy of this order and send it to the concerned department for enquiry with regard to this over- writing. 5] In the attendance register, it is shown that he had resumed duty on 26/5/11. He is working in the same district and so at this stage, defence of alibi cannot considered. It was submitted that the distance between his place of duty and Parner is 90 Kms. In this case also, it is easy for anybody to go to native place if there is some dispute going on. In view of these circumstances, defence of alibi cannot be considered in the present proceeding. 6] In the report, name of the present applicnt is mentioned as the person who assaulted complainant by using stick etc. Injury certificate in respect of Anil Tanpure is produced and it shows that he was admitted in Deepak hospital, Ahmednagar. There were injuries on his chin, forehead, left temporal region, left occipital region and there were blood injuries and abrasion over parts of the body. The certificate also shows that there was fracture injury to left leg. C.T. scan of the brain was done and there was injury to head. The injury certificate in respect of other persons like Yeshwant, Sunil, Tarachand, Chintamani and Sahadeo are produced. They show that all of them had sustained 4 criap2408-11 3-4 injuries each. Sahadeo, Chintamani and Yeshwant had sustained chop wounds. This material is sufficient to make out prima facie case against applicant also for offence punishable u/s 326, 149 etc. of I.P.C. The statements of other witnesses are there and they attribute role to other accused. 7] Advocate for the applicant submitted that Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to persons like Sudam, Amruta, Hiraman and Dnyaneshwar. If report report is seen carefully, it can be said that persons like Shivaji, Nitin, Rameshwar, Kishor, Rajendra and Vishal are shown as leaders and the names of some other persons are mentioned as associates of the main accused. In these circumstances and as present applicants are shown as the main accused, who had dispute with complainant due to damage caused to village Gymnasium, this Court holds that it is not fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application stands rejected. 8] Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln2408-11