IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1205 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1205 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1205 OF 2008 Shri Devchand Narayan Patil. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. K.S.Patil for the applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 29th April 2008. DATED: 29th April 2008. DATED: 29th April 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this application under section 438 of Cr.P.C., the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.I-101/2008 registered with the Panvel City Police Station, Raigad for the offences punishable under sections 326, 336, 341, 323, 506, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint of one Narayan Mali. 3. The applicant has moved this application after having suffered adverse order 3rd April, 2008 at the hands of 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag. While rejecting the application of the applicant, the trial Court has observed under: "5. I have thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced from both the sides. I have also carefully gone through the papers of investigation and the say filed by the I.O. at Exh.7. There is sufficient evidence against the applicants to connect them with the alleged crime. The applicant Nos.2 and 3 Devchand and Ravindra used the weapons like iron rods in giving assault to the complainant Narayan Mali. As such to facilitate the investigation and to prove the charge against the applicants, the recovery of the weapons is essential for which custodial interrogation is necessary. The offence not at all appears to be charged against the applicants with some ulterior motive or to lower down their prestige. The charge is quite serious in nature. Therefore, on the aforesaid background the applicant Nos.2 and 3 Devchand and Ravindra are not at all deserve for the anticipatory bail. 6. So far as the role of applicant No.1 Sanjay and applicant No.4 Mohan is concerned, they allegedly gave assault to the complainant by throwing stone s well as the fist blow. Stone was not at all carried by the applicant Sanjay with him after the alleged commission of crime......" 4. Having seen the material available on record and the observations made by the trial Court, in my considered view, no case is made out to take contrary view. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE