1 ba 1201 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1201 OF 2011 Nagesh Rajaram Sathe .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Pratap Patil i/b Mr. M.V. Thorat, for the applicant. Mr. J. P. Kharge, APP for the Respondent State. Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe, for the complainant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 21st September, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for bail by one Nagesh Sathe, who is alleged to be the motivating factor behind the assault on the first informant-Hanumant, Angad Mote, Satyavan Bhosale and Laxman Bhosale. Angad Mote died as a result of injuries sustained by him. F.I.R. shows that when the first informant Hanumant, Angad Mote, Satyavan and Laxman Bhosale went to the dairy of Tukaram Sathe to deliver milk, 13 persons including present applicant were present there. The applicant asked the first informant and his friends as to why they were opposing his party and giving complaint against him to the police. At that time Yogesh Jagtap hit the first informant with stick, Vishnu Jagtap hit Angad with sickle and Ganesh Jagtap hit Satyavan Bhosale with sickle. Laxman 2 ba 1201 of 2011 Bhosale was also injured in the assault. Except Yogesh Jagtap, Vishnu Jagtap, Ganesh Jagtap and the present applicant, all other accused persons have been admitted to bail by various orders of Sessions Court and this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the only role attributed to the applicant is uttering words as to why first informant and his friends were opposing his party and giving report against them to the police. Learned APP and learned counsel for the first informant submitted that this is not the solitary incident and on 8th February, 2011, the applicant and his henchmen had assaulted Rajaram, Saudagar Balkude and his friends at about 10.30 p.m. about which report was given on 9th February, 2011 at 1.20 a.m. He also submitted that the applicant has criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that in one of the cases filed pursuant to the report made in the year 2006, his client had been acquitted, the other report led to filing 'A' Summary, and the third pertains to the incident dated 8th February, 2011. Considering the nature of allegations made, learned counsel, submitted that it could not be said that the applicant had already prepared himself to launch assault on the first informant and his friends. Actual assault was by Yogesh Jagtap, Vishnu Jagtap and Ganesh Jagtap, even as per F. I. R and those who were merely present have already been released on bail. Therefore, he submitted that his client too be 3 ba 1201 of 2011 admitted to bail. 3. Though the learned counsel for the first informant and learned APP have very strong objection to the applicant being released on bail, because the applicant is Sarpanch and would be in a position to tamper the witnesses, once the other accused persons have been admitted to bail, it would not be permissible to deny bail to the applicant since the words attributed to the applicant are merely questioning the first informant as to why they were opposing applicant’s party or gave report in police. There is no word indicating that the applicant had instigated three Jagtaps to assault first informant and his friends. 4. Learned APP, placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court, in case of Chandrabihari Gautam and ors - vs- State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 2208, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained scope of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in para 8 of the judgment. This does not show that the applicant could be denied bail when the others, who may also be called members of unlawful assembly, have been admitted to bail by this Court. In view of this, the applicant arrested in connection with C. R. No. 59 of 2011 registered at Mohol Police Station, District: Solapur, be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.40,000/- on the condition that the applicant 4 ba 1201 of 2011 shall scrupulously keep himself away from all prosecution witnesses and he shall also report to the concerned police station on first Sunday of the every month between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. till the trial is over. 5. Application stands disposed of. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)