1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1367 OF 2010 Imran Shaikh Bashir ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the applicant Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1407 OF 2010 Ajaz Chichi @ Ajaj Khawaja Sayyed ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the applicant Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 21st April, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Kazi, learned counsel for the applicants in both the applications and Mr. K.S. Patil, learned A.P.P. for the 2 respondent/State. 2. Since both the aforesaid applications arise out of one and the same incident and also from same C.R. No.I-53/10, both the applications are being decided by one and same present order. 3. These are the two applications preferred by the respective applicants, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under C.R. No.I-53/2010, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act as well as Section 37(1) (3)/135 of the Bombay Police Act. 4. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Bhupendra Shantaram Pardeshi (Gujar) on 17.2.2010 in respect of the occurrence of the incident on the same day. It is alleged in the said complaint, that the complainant is residing along with his father, mother and brother and wife and children at Prashant Colony, Savedi, Ahmednagar and he is carrying on the business of contractor. It is also alleged that, on 17.2.2010 he along with his friend namely Ram Gajanan Wagh had gone to Dr. Pokarni’s Hospital at about 13.15 Hrs. to meet one Mr. Gautam Adhav and 3 when they reached near Raj Medical Stores, at Ramchandra Khunt on motorcycle, he saw six persons namely Imran i.e. applicant in Criminal Application No.1367/2010, Ajaz Chichi i.e. applicant in Criminal Application No.1407/2010, Shoeb Bhaiyya and his brother Lalu Boss along with 15-20 persons who had placed their motorcycles across the road and they started assaulting the complainant and his friend by weapons like sticks, wooden logs, iron rod, sword and fighter and thereby complainant and his friend namely Ram Gajanan Wagh sustained bleeding injuries. It is further alleged that, during the occurrence of the incident, the complainant lost his gold chain weighing 5 tolas and his friend Ram Gajanan Wagh lost his Nokia Company Mobile Handset (N-81) and Hiar Company Mobile Handset. 5. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant Imran Shaikh Bashir is a Government servant. It is also canvassed that the injury certificate of complainant and Ram Gajanan Wagh, Bhupendra and another injured Ram Gajanan Wagh disclose that they sustained simple injuries and, therefore the application of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is under doldrums. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicants canvassed that the applicants have been implicated in this case falsely and, therefore, he urged that the present applications for grant of anticipatory bail be allowed. 4 6. While opposing the present applications, learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and submitted that the complaint and supplementary statemnet of the complainant categorically disclose the names of the applicants herein and, therefore, there is no question of any false implication of the applicants in the alleged crime. Moreover, it is also canvassed by learned A.P.P. that although the complainant and his friend Ram Gajanan Wagh had sustained simple injuries under the injury certificate, the intention of the assailants is to be gathered. In the circumstances, the learned A.P.P. submitted that present application bears no substance and same be dismissed. 7. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, at the outset, considering the contents of the complaint as well as the supplementary statement of the complainant, it is apparent that the names of the applicants have been reflected therein categorically and, therefore, apparently, there is no question of possibility of false implication of the applicants in the alleged crime. Moreover, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the further progress of the investigation in proper perspective and, therefore, the applicants have failed to make out case for grant of anticipatory 5 bail. 8. In the result, present applications being sans merits, stand dismissed. 9. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri1367.10