abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3905 OF 2007 Shoib Hashim Sayyed .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Vineet Jain i/b Mr.Girish Kulkarni for the applicants. Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this application, the applicant, who claims to be an injured person in the crime, prays for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai vide his order dated 2nd November 2007 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.24 of 2007. - 2 - 3. According to applicant, there was some quarrel between the group of the applicant and the opposing group on account of an attempt made by the applicant group for fixing a banner/poster of a corporator Aslam Shaikh and Jamil Merchant on the public property in a public place. Admittedly, no permission of the authority was taken by the applicant for fixing the banner/poster. 4. According to the applicant, he was assaulted by a knife and has suffered injury in the quarrel and the respondents are responsible for the said injury and therefore the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have granted them anticipatory bail. 5. The respondents are alleged to be the associates of the main accused Faheem, who is accused no.2. His bail application has been rejected. The names of the present respondents have not been noted in the FIR. There are no antecedents of any previous cognizable offence against the respondents. These facts have been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge while granting the anticipatory bail. In paragraph 7 of his order, the learned Sessions Judge has observed: "7. The applicants are permanent resident of - 3 - Mumbai. There are no antecedents of undergoing imprisonment for any cognizable offence. The very fact that their names does not appear in the F.I.R. and no overt act is attributed to them shows that the object of registering offence against them is to humiliate or injure the applicants by having them so arrested. They are ready to abide by the conditions imposed, if any, while releasing them on bail." I see no error in the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail to the respondents. 6. It may also be noted that the State has not cared to challenge this order of grant of anticipatory bail to the respondents perhaps because the State does not require the presence of the respondents for custodial investigation. 7. In the circumstances, I see no merit in the application which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)