/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLIATION NO.1685/06 Shri.Nitin Indrasingh Pardeshi & Anr. .... Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri. K.S. Patil & Deepak Girme Adv. for the applicants. Miss. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 24/04/06 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for an anticipatory bail filed by the applicants. The applicants have an apprehension that they are likely to be arrested in connection with C.R.No.1140/2006 for the offences punishable U/s.326, 324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. It is alleged that the applicants' brother-in- law intervened the quarrel between the complainant and / 2 / her husband. N.C. Complaint was lodged by the complaint on the next day. It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicants questioned husband of complainant as to why complaint was lodged. The applicant No.1 Nitin Pardeshi assaulted him by bamboo and iron rod on his leg. As a result of which husband of complainant suffered fracture on his right leg and the applicant No.2 Suraj Pardeshi gave fist blows and abuses to the complainant's husband. 4. Looking at the nature of offence, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 5. The applicants are, however, given seven days time to surrender before the police or before a competent court and if the application for bail is filed by the applicants, same shall be considered on the merits and in accordance with law. 6. It is clarified that the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail are different. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made by this Court while rejecting the application and they shall not be construed as an / 3 / expression of opinion on merits of the case. 7. The application is accordingly disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.