1 Cr. Appln. no. 4092.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4092 OF 2009 1. Nishant S/o Bapurao Gaikwad Age 20 years,Occu.Education, 2. Jairam S/o Dattatrya Kaldate, Age 23 years,Occup.Agriculture, 3. Sinath S/o Vithal More, Age 30 years,occup.Agrigulure, 4. Nitin S/o Vithal More, Age 30 years,occup.Agrigulure, 5. Dattatray S/o Shivaji Dongare, Age 30 years,Occup.Agriculture, 6. Santosh S/p Popatl Pisal, Age 32 years,occup.Agriculture, 7. Malhari S/o Pandurang Gaikwad, Age 34 years,occup.Agriculture, 8. Sudhir S/o subhash Pisal, Age 23 years,occup.Education, All R/o Rajuri,Ta.Jamkhed, Distarict Ahmednagar ...Applicants V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on PP High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad ) 2. The District Superintendent of Police,Ahmednagar. 2 Cr. Appln. no. 4092.09 3. The Police Station Officer, Jamkhed Police Station, Jamkhed,District Ahmednagar. ...Respondents WITh CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4156 OF 2009 1. Bhau S/o Hanuman Kaldate, Age 27 years,occup.Agriculture, 2. Bhausaheb S/o Shivaji Kolhe, Age 27 years,occup.Agriculture, 3. Somnath S/o Ankush Kolhe, Age 25 years,occup.Agriculture, 4. Laxman S/o Sopan Kolhe, Age 34 years,Occup.Agriculture, 5. Bhausaheb S/o Kisan Kaldate, Age 34 years,occup.Agriculture, All R/o Rajuri,Ta.Jamkhed, Distarict Ahmednagar ...Applicants V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on PP High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad ) 2. The District Superintendent of Police,Ahmednagar. 3. The Police Station Officer, Jamkhed Police Station, Jamkhed,District Ahmednagar. ...Respondents 3 Cr. Appln. no. 4092.09 ... Mr. C.K.Shinde,Advocate for Applicants. Mr. B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P. for respondent-State. ... CORAM : A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED : 11TH DECEMBER, 2009 PER COURT 1] By these two applications the applicants approached to this court for their release on anticipatory bail, in the event, of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 59 of 2009, registered with Jamkhed Police station, Taluka Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar, for the alleged offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act and under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, under section 4 with Section 25 of the Arms Act as well as offence punishable under Bombay Police Act. 2] Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants and followed by the submissions of learned A.P.P. for the respondents-State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. It appears that the said offence came to be registered in Jamkhed Police Station on 4th May, 2009, upon the incident took place in the night of 3rd May,2009, on the complaint of one Sunil Sampat Sadaphule. In the said complaint, he has given 4 Cr. Appln. no. 4092.09 the name of total 37 persons, who are arrayed as an accused, out of those 37 persons, the persons whose name appears at serial nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26, are the applicants, by way of this application before this court. 3] The facts disclosed in the said complaint further disclosed that on 29th April, 2009, as it was day of Ambedkar Jayanti Festival. The Board having Photograph of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was displayed at conscious place in the village Rajuri. The people of this community when came to remove this Board in the evening of 30th April, 2009, it appears that already some persons have removed that Board and got damaged. At that time, quarrel took place between two community people. It was settled by peace committee of the village in presence of Police Officer as well as Revenue Officers on 1st May,2009. Further, it appears that, the facts disclosed in the complaint that in the night of 3rd May,2009 the mob of 70 to 75 persons attacked on the residential premise occupied by the specific community, those persons were armed with deadly weapon and they attacked on this residential area of these people by abusing these peoples by their Caste and also attacked. In that attack, about 14 persons have sustained serious injuries, which were admitted in the Hospital. The name of these applicants appeared in the First Information Report, as well as name of 5 Cr. Appln. no. 4092.09 14 injured persons, who sustained grievous injuries during this attack, are also named in the First Information Report. 4] During the course of submissions across the Bar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants urged before me relying on the observation in paragraph No.4, in the matter of Shashikant Ramhari Tabme and Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri)2132, wherein it is observed that, “Omnibus statement in the complaint about the allegation of abuse, on the point of Caste, is not sufficient to attract an offence punishable under section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act.” Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that considering the vague statement against the persons whose names as were party of the mob has placed, an offence punishable under section 3(1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act will not be attracted and if it is so the complainant is also silent on the individual role played by individual applicants, then on this count the allegations are vague and they are entitled to release on anticipatory bail. 5] While opposing the bail application, it is urged by the learned A.P.P. for the respondent- State that the statements recorded during the 6 Cr. Appln. no. 4092.09 investigation of the injured witnesses have clearly disclosed that which of the applicants have played particular role to assault on the injured person and weapon used by the individual applicant. According to learned A.P.P., if this prayer is considered, it can’t be said that individual act of the individual accused can not be attributed about the role played by them. So far as offence punishable under section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, it is not possible, according to him, when it is attack by mob and hence prayed for rejection of this bail application. 6] Considering the submissions advanced across the bar by learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the respondents-State in support of their rival contentions, it is to be noted that the observations in paragraph no. 5 in the matter of Shashikar Ramhari Tambe and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra will not be applicable in present case that it was not case of mob of attack on particular community, but it was the case where some persons who have abused the complainant therein on their caste. As against this, if mob of 75 to 100 persons attacked on the residential area, it can’t at any stretch of imagine that the persons on whom this mob had attacked whether initially will try to save their lives or they concentrate on the persons who are abusing them in 7 Cr. Appln. no. 4092.09 the name of their Caste when entire mob is abusing in the name of Caste. Apart from it, at least at this stage it can not be disbelieved that, during this mob attack 14 persons were seriously injured. The statements of 14 persons were recorded during the course of investigation. These injured persons named the persons who assaulted them and weapon used by these particular applicants during the assault on these injured. All these persons are members of unlawful of the assembly and their common object to damage the person and property of the community people and also to abuse them. In the premises, no case made out to exercise the discretion under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. Both the applications deserves following order. ORDER Both application stand rejected. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) MTK/