1 CA4533/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4533 OF 2011 Laxman Masarao Dhale & Anr. Applicants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Shri P.K. Chaware, Advocate, holding for Shri V.S. Ghongade, Advocate for the applicants Shri B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 17th November, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates of both sides. 2. The applicants apprehend arrest in CR No. 71 of 2011 of Basamba Police Station, District Hingoli. The incident is said to have been taken place on 11th August, 2011, at about 11.00 hours or so, wherein the present applicant No. 1 was armed with an iron pipe, whereas applicant No. 2 was armed with a sword. The present applicants are directly involved and their role in the incident is assigned by the complainant. The police, in the course of investigation, recorded statements of Dnyaneshwar and Anandrao and other persons. The police have also forwarded medical certificates in respect of as many as six persons i. e. Bharat, Manik, Vanita, Sanjay, Kamalbai and Madan. The injuries reflected in the medical certificates are in consonance with the history of the crime alleged against the present 2 CA4533/11 applicants, and to that extent, prima facie case is made out against them. 3. The police have filed charge-sheet, wherein these two applicants are shown absconding. It was sought to be argued by the learned Advocate for the applicants that the victims in the present crime had assaulted the present applicants, for which CR No. 72 of 2011 of Basamba Police Station, District Hingoli was registered, and in that crime also, the present applicants were seriously injured. It was sought to be contended that now the charge- sheet is filed, and therefore, the present applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. 4. Having gone through the overt acts alleged against the applicants and having noted that the present applicants have been shown as absconding at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, in my view, this is not a case where the Court should exercise jurisdiction in favour of the applicants by way of granting anticipatory bail. The process of law has to follow. In view above, the anticipatory bail will have to be rejected. Hence, the following order : ORDER The application for Anticipatory bail stands rejected. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/ca4533/11/17/11/11