SRJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3248 OF 2010 Kalidas Mangela & Others .. Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri Shirish Gupte, Sr.Counsel with Shri Rajesh Sharma and Sunil B. Jadhav i/b. M/s. R.S.Sharma & Associates for for Applicants. Mrs. A.S.Pai, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : AUGUST 17th, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by two applicants apprehending their arrest in C.R.No.291 of 2010 registered with Santacruz Police Station, Bombay for the offences punishable under sections 307, 324 and also offences of rioting and also punishable under section 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code and also offences punishable under sections 3& 25 of Indian Arms Act. SRJ 2 2. It is significant to note that the offence punishable under section 149 of Indian Penal Code is also charged against present applicant along with other co- accused. 3. Prior to discussing the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Shri Gupte on behalf of the Applicants, certain factual position leading to filing of First Information Report, can be narrated. 4. There was certain project for development under the S.R.A. Scheme. On 13 th June, 2010, present Applicants and other co-accused also accompanied by one local corporator of one political party, appeared on the site where some construction was going on. First informant was a security supervisor at site. Some people from the said mob started taking photographs of the said construction work. Site supervisor objected, saying that he had instructions to stop such activities. The local corporator who was present and in fact who had brought the present Applicants in one Xylo Motor car, started abusing the Complainant and started instigating the mob to teach the lesson to the Complainant. Not only this, the said Corporator threatened the Complaint by showing his revolver. During the said incidents, one co-accused took out a knief and stabbed the Complainant on his chest SRJ 3 and caused bleeding injuries. Other co-accused were also armed with certain weapons like choppers and hockey sticks. There are three other witnesses mentioning the presence of the present Applicants also armed with the respective articles. 5. After the incident of assault and rioting was over, the Applicants along with co-accused tried to run away from the spot. They entered in the Xylo car in which they had arrived on the spot. However, the vehicle was accosted by the mob. The Applicants and other co-accused run away from the spot leaving the vehicle there. It is a factual position that in the said vehicle one chopper and one hockey stick were found. 6. During arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants submitted that there is a cross complaint lodged by one Bablya Mangela, who is assigned the role of stabbing the Complainant. It is brought to the notice of the Court that vertually at same time, both the Complaints came to be lodged with the same police station, first one is bearing no.291 of 2010 and second one is 293 of 2010. Complaint No.293 of 2010 is First Information Report lodged by Bablya against present Complainant and other 10 to 15 unknown persons. It is alleged in the said First Information Report that Bablya and his other associates including the present Applicant had been to the site in order to inspect the construction SRJ 4 work. However, they were assaulted by the site supervisor and heir lings of builder. Thereafter, he had attend the police station to lodged the complaint. 7. The admitted position is that in the present matter, in the First Information Report lodged against present Applicants and other co-accused names of the present Applicants are specifically mentioned. During the said incidents, co-accused stabbed the first informant by means of knief. Said knief has also been recovered and said Bablya was arrested and substantially released on bail. Considering the nature of the transaction and the allegations against the Applicants as to their presence on the spot, armed with articles, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence order:- (a) Criminal Application stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)