1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3831 OF 2009 Asaram S/o.Shankarrao Warade, and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.S.J.Salunke, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 23/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release in the event of their arrest in CR No. 121/2009, registered in Pathari Police Station in connection with an offence u/s. 452, 427, 323, 504, 506, r/w.34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. The facts as disclosed from the offence registered vide CR No.121/2009 that in the night of 22/10/2009, after the results of the assembly election were declared, there was 2 procession about the candidate, who has got elected. When that procession was proceeding in front of the door of the complainant, on account of political enmity as well as the dispute between gram panchayat election, these applicants, broke open the door of house of complainant and with intention to assault the son of complainant, they entered in the house and assaulted him with kicks and blows. The persons who were present there, interrupted and mediated between the said scuffle and separated the parties. As the husband of the complainant was not present at the residential premises, the incident was informed to him and on the next day, FIR was lodged in the police station. 3. It is urged across the bar that due to political rivalry between the complainant’s party and applicant’s party, these applicants are falsely implicated in the present offence. It is also addressed across the bar that to attract the offence u/s. 452 of The IPC, mere breaking of the door is not sufficient, unless there is an intention to cause hurt to the inmates inside the premises. At this juncture, the Court is not in agreement with these submissions. 4. While opposing the application, it is urged across the bar that the statement of the eye witnesses discloses the incident as narrated in the complaint and also further corroborated from the statements of the witnesses that the son of the complainant was assaulted at the hands of these applicants. 3 5. Considering these submissions across the bar, first the fact is clear that there is disclosure of names of these applicants in the complaint as well as in the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. Secondly individual role played by these applicants was not only6 disclosed by the complainant, but by the eye witnesses also. There is prima facie evidence about the participation of these applicants in the alleged offence and if it is so, the application deserves the only order : Application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3831-09