1 ABA 86 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 86 OF 2011 1. Keval Vaman Chavan 2. Deelip Vaman Chavan, 3. Arun Vaman Chavan, 4. Prithviraj Arun Chavan, 5. vishwas Gangaram Chavan, 6. Nitin Keval Chavan 7. Mahesh Keval Chavan, 8. Mahesh Deelip Chavan, 9. Amrut Gangaram Chavan .. Applicants -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Arjun Kode, for the Applicant. Mrs P. P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 7th February, 2011 P.C. 1. The applicants are alleged to have been involved in assaulting Dharma Pandurang and his family members with sticks and iron rods. Dharma's report got registered as crime No.I-238 of 2010, registered at Satana Police Station, District: Nashik. Before that the applicant No.6 has filed report about the same incident in which applicant No.6 was injured, which got registered at Crime No.233 of 2010. Considering the fact that both parties are related each other and participated in 2 ABA 86 OF 2011 assault and have made reports against each other, there is no question of any mistaken identity as such. Learned APP submits that for recovery of weapons applicants' custody is required and has strong objection to release them on bail. The weapons, sticks and iron rods, are not unusual items and therefore that cannot be a ground for subjecting applicants to custodial interrogation. The applicants being in custody for the purpose of investigation may not be necessary. Therefore, in the event of applicants' arrest in above CR, they be released on bail on their furnishing PR Bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-by each of them with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.25,000/- by each of them on the following conditions : i) The applicants shall make themselves available on 15th February, 2011 between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for interrogation by Investigating Officer and thereafter as and when required Investigating Officer. ii) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. 3 ABA 86 OF 2011 i) The order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if chargesheeted the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre -vs- State of Maharashtra and ors, in S.L.P No.7615 of 2009. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)