1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2010 1. Ramdhan S/o.Habbusingh Pawar, Age-44 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Georai Tanda, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad 2. Raju S/o.Ramdhan Pawar, Age-29 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Georai Tanda, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad 3. Suresh S/o.Govind Pawar, Age-27 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Georai Tanda, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad, APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.R.N.Dhorde, h/f. Mr.N.K.Chaudhary, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent State WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.277 OF 2010 Mangilal S/o.Dhondiram Pawar, Age-42 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Georai Brook Bond, Tal. And Dist. Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Ramdhan S/o.Habbusingh Pawar, 2 Age-44 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Georai Tanda, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad 2. Raju S/o.Ramdhan Pawar, Age-29 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Georai Tanda, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad 3. Suresh S/o.Govind Pawar, Age-27 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Georai Tanda, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad 4. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.R.N.Dhorde, learned counsel for respondent no.1 to 3 Mr.N.B.patil, learned APP for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 22/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, who are arrayed as an accused in Crime No.130/2009, registered in Chikalthana Police Station, Aurangabad, in which applicants came to be arrested on 09/12/2009, have approached this Court for their release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also heard learned counsel appearing for the original complainant. Application filed by the original complainant to assist Learned APP and to address the 3 Court, which is numbered as Cri.Appl.No.277/2010 is hereby allowed and stands disposed of. No separate order require to be passed on Cri.Appl. 277/2010 now. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, it can not be disputed that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Mangilal in Chikalthana Police Station wherein he has reported about the attack by these applicants alongwith 2 others and 2 unknown persons in the night of 08/12/2009. The alleged incident took place at around 9.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. There is an allegation in the complaint that the present applicant no.1 assaulted the complainant on his head with iron rod in his hand, applicant no.2 assaulted on his nose with a stick in his hand, while the 3 rd applicant assaulted with fist and kick blows, and the remaining 2 persons assaulted to the son of complainant Narendra. During the course of submissions, it is tried to urge that there is political rivalry between the applicant and complainant, as the wife of complainant is Sarpanch of village Gevrai Brook Bond Tanda and the present complainant is doing administration of gram panchayat of that village, even though he is no way concerned with that village. The present applicant is also elected member of Gevrai and due to the political rivalry between the wife of complainant and present applicant no.1, they are falsely implicated in the present case, and procured false medical certificates with an intention to keep the applicants behind bar. 4. During the course of submissions, medical papers about the 4 treatment provided to the complainant Mangilal and his son are produced on record. Much hue and cry is made about the medical certificates obtained by the lawyer of the applicant under Right to Information Act, but that certificate obtained is of the initial treatment provided to the complainant. To obtain the medical certificate under Right to Information Act, and to tender it in the Court, can not be termed as an intervention in the investigation at the hands of investigation agency as these certificates are not procured from the medical officer. If this application is moved and information is provided, then it can be said that it is an intervention at the hands of accused in the investigation of crime. The medical certificate of Mangilal shows that he has sustained 3 fracture injuries on his nose. He took treatment about 4 days in the hospital and later on discharged. The report submitted by the prosecution on the instructions of Investigation Officer present in the Court shows that the applicant no.1 is a history sheeter and there are 3 crimes to his credit, wherein learned APP unable to inform whether the criminal cases lodged on the basis of these crimes, whether those cases are finally disposed of or not, but it shows the back ground of the applicants. 5. The question require to be considered that as the applicants are arrested in connection with this offence on 09/12/2009 i.e. about 45 days back, whether their custody is essential till filing of the charge sheet. This question require to be considered in the light of political rivalry between the two parties. It can not be forget that the 5 defence of political rivalry is a double edged weapon, which can be turned at any time. If the applicants are taking benefit of this defence, then the question arose that why the same parameter not to be applied to the case of Mangilal, who has lodged the present case. In the certificate produced at the initial stage find reference that the injured Mangilal was referred for surgery. The final certificate placed in my hand indicates that surgery was performed and during that surgery, found 6 serious grevious injuries and out of those 6 injuries, in 4 injuries, there is dislocation of the nasal bone of complainant. If it is so, it can not be said false implication on the ground of political rivalry. If there is criminal background to the credit of the first applicant, then when the investigation is still in progress, it can not be rulled out that there will be interference in the investigation of the present crime at the hands of present applicants. 6. In the premise, as still the investigation is in progress, it is not safe at least at this stage to enlarge the applicants accused on bail. In the premise, following is the order : O R D E R 1 Cri.Appl. 158/2010 stands dismissed. 2. Cri.Appl. No.277/2010 to assist the learned APP and to address the Court is allowed. 3. Both the applications stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri-appl-158-10