(1) CRI.APP. 4575.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4575 OF 2010 Munna @ Tajmohammad Allarakha Makrani, Age : 34 years, Occu.: Service and Agriculture, R/o Makrani Galli, Tq. Akkalkuwa, District Nandurbar .. Applicant VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Akkalkuwa, Tq. Akkalkuwa, Dist. Nandurbar 2. Superintendent of Police, S.P. Office, Nandurbar, District Nandurbar .. Respondents ... Mr. R.B. Narwade Patil, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the FIR alongwith the investigation papers. (2) CRI.APP. 4575.2010 3. The applicant is named in the FIR as a person who was instigating the members of the group which indulged in pelting stones towards procession carried out during Ganesh festival. The incident involves question of public peace and tranquility and therefore, the Police Officers attempted to catch hold of the persons involved in pelting of the stones. It appears from the recitals of the FIR that the applicant was directed to go away from the place of the procession of Ganpati, but he ducked himself by side of a vehicle and started pelting of stones in the direction of the participants of the procession. 4. The contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant is that since the applicant is named as witness in a counter complaint lodged by one Shoaib Abdul Karim Makrani, he has been falsely named and likely to be arrested without any legal foundation. It appears that the counter complaint was filed by Shoaib Abdul Karim Makrani in respect of incident which occurred on 4th July, 2010. If the Police wanted to falsely implicate the applicant, due to such incident which had occurred more than couple of (3) CRI.APP. 4575.2010 months back, the other witnesses and particularly the informant of that complaint could also be involved and they would have perhaps complained of such false involvement. The counter complaint has no direct concern with the FIR on basis of which the crime no. 80 of 2010 is registered at Akkalkuwa Police Station. There is prima facie evidence to show that the applicant is involved in offence of rioting, disturbance of peace and creating enmity between two communities as a result of the acts alongwith the acts of his group members. 5. No case is prima facie made out to grant discretionary relief under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Application is dismissed. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp