(1) Criminal Application No. 3336 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3336 of 2011 Viju @ Vijay s/o. Bandu Savant, Aged : 24 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ismailpur, Taluka : Paithan, .. Applicant District : Aurangabad. (Original accused) versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station Officer, Police Station, Paithan, District : Aurangabad. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. V.M. Kagne, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. G.R. Ingole, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 22ND AUGUST 2011 (2) Criminal Application No. 3336 of 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. I-1/2011, registered at Police Station, Paithan (District : Aurangabad), for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Pratap s/o. Balwantrao Deshmukh, on 8-1-2011 in respect of the occurrence of the incident on 6-1-2011. The contents of the FIR reflect that the name of the applicant has been surfaced therein, who was present at the time of occurrence of the incident, and specific role has been attributed to him. It is alleged that the present applicant along with other co-accused caught hold of the complainant Pratap and assaulted him by means of stick on his head, and accordingly, injury certificate discloses that the complainant Pratap sustained head injury. (3) Criminal Application No. 3336 of 2011 4. Learned Adv. Mr. V.M. Kagne, for the applicant, submits that the co-accused Hari, who rushed on the person of deceased Madhav, has been enlarged on bail, as well as, Bandu Sawant, who is almost on equal footing of the present applicant, has also been enlarged on bail, and therefore, the applicant also be enlarged on bail. 5. I have perused the investigation papers which are made available by the learned APP for inspection purpose, and it appears that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons. However, it appears that the applicant herein was absconding and now preferred the present application for anticipatory bail. As regards the contention made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that the co-accused Hari, who rushed on the person of victim, has been enlarged on bail, the role ascribed to the said co-accused in the contents of FIR is different, whereas Bandu Sawant, who is almost on equal footing of the applicant, was not enlarged on anticipatory bail, but he was arrested after filing of the complaint and thereafter enlarged on bail. However, so is not the position in respect of the present applicant, since he is seeking anticipatory bail, and the parameters for regular bail and anticipatory bail are different. Apart from that, granting anticipatory bail to the applicant herein, after lapse of about (4) Criminal Application No. 3336 of 2011 seven months, during which the applicant was absconding, would amount to granting premium on his abscondance, and hence, present application deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, present Criminal Application lacks merits, and therefore, stands dismissed, and is disposed of finally. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3336