1appln-3488-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3488 of 2010 Prakash Uttam Arsul .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr Abhaykumar Apte, for the Applicant. Mrs A. S. Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. ----------- CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 11TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.137/2010 registered with Chinchwad Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 427 of I.P.C. and offences of rioting. 2appln-3488-10 2. Prima facie, there is role given to the present applicant as to using the knife and stabbing the brother of the complainant on his chest. By such assault grievous hurt was caused and the said injured was removed to the hospital. During such incidence, apart from the present applicant, his wife and brother and other 7/8 associates also took part in the assault and in fact while leaving the scene of offence, after creating atmosphere of terror, a sort of commotion was created and the vehicles of the complainant were ransacked by breaking windshield. 3. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there is a counter case filed against the original complainant and his other associates by the wife of the present applicant. Said complaint is lodged vide C.R.No.138/2010 with the same police station. It was lodged at 10:00 p.m. Whereas C.R.No. 137/2010, against the present applicant, is lodged at 9:35 p.m. The offences alleged against the applicant are more serious in nature. 4. Also, during the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant pointed out the contents of an affidavit, copy of which is attached to the present bail application. Said affidavit is purported to have been sworn by the complainant in the present case wherein he 3appln-3488-10 mentions that name of the present applicant is erroneously taken by him. Said affidavit is seen, sworn before the District Court,Pune on 24.6.2010. By pointing out the said affidavit, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that in fact both the rival groups have compromised the matter. 5. On the above contents of the affidavit, learned A.P.P.for the State submitted that even before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who rejected the bail application of the applicant, said affidavit was produced. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court also did not rely on the said affidavit, so far as the grant or otherwise of the anticipatory bail is concerned. 6. It can be noted that, had the party already compounded, still it is for the concerned Court to deal with the matter concerning offence punishable under section 326 and when the investigation is still going on and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, otherwise also, it was open for the present applicant to surrender before the Sessions Court and to submit him to the authority of the law, if according to him, the parties have compounded the matter and the offence against him has been virtually diluted. However, such recourse has not been taken by the applicant. 4appln-3488-10 7. In view of the above circumstances, considering the seriousness of the offence and the injuries caused to the injured, brother of the complainant, it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Anticipatory bail application is rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. Application is disposed of in above terms. (A.R.JOSHI,J)