1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2116 OF 2009 Dilip Tukaram Ghadge & Ors. .. Applicants. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2117 OF 2009 Anil Tukaram Ghadge & Ors. .. Applicants. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.A.P.Mundargi i/b J.D.Mane for the applicants. Mrs.P.P.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. Mr.J.Shekhar for the original complainant. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 18th June, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.77 of 2009 of Pandarpur Police Station, District Solapur. The said crime has been registered against the applicants and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 395, 397 of IPC, section 3(1)(10) of S.C.S.T. (Prevention 2 of Atrocities) Act, section 7 (1)(3) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and section 135 of Arms Act. 3. Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicants at the outset invited my attention to the FIR and submitted that the provisions of the Atrocities Act are wrongly applied in the instant case. The complainant himself does not belong to schedule caste and, therefore, the provisions of Atrocities Act are not attracted. At this stage Ms.Shinde, learned A.P.P., on instructions from Mr.Pramod Hondra, Dy.S.P., submits that they do not require custody of the applicants in connection with the instant offence at this stage. She further submits that if they require custody of the applicants they will give 72 hours notice to the applicants to enable them to approach the appropriate court. In view of the statement made by learned A.P.P., Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicants does not press this application. The application is disposed of. It is needless to state that the applicants shall co-operate with the investigation. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)