{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2403 OF 2010 Kailash s/o Manohar Rao Davkar and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the applicants Mr. D.V.Tele, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 12th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicants have prayed for pre- arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No. 46/2010 registered with Pimpalner police station, Dist-Beed for an offence punishable u/s 143 to 149, 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code with section 25 (1) and (3) of the Arms Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by {2} the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Narayan Devkate in respect of an incident dated 19.05.2010 which has occurred at about 7.30 p.m. It is alleged that the said incident is a result of an earlier incident, which had occurred in the morning of the same day between one rickshaw driver and one Dnyanoba and the dispute was settled by respectable persons. It is alleged that in the evening when the complainant was at bus stand with others, the present applicants with 15 other persons came there in three different vehicles and they were armed with deadly weapons like swords, knife and iron rods and all of a sudden attacked the persons, who were present at the bus stand. It is alleged that one Dwarkadas Davkar fired two shots from the gun which he was having, to disperse the people who were present at the bus stand. It is further alleged that out the present applicants, three were armed with deadly weapons. It is alleged that applicant No.2 inflicted stab injury on the person of one Ramprasad. It is also alleged that during the said incident {3} total four persons sustained grievous injuries. Out of the said injured, medical certificates of Ramprasad and complainant are on record. It is further alleged that considering the nature of injuries sustained by Bandu Gadiwal in the said incident, he was referred to Aurangabad for medical treatment. 4. It is tried to urge that all the applicants are from one family and they were not known to the complainant and though the incident of assault occurred on 19th May 2010 yet the same is reported to the police station on the next day. It is also urged that the complainant is not acquainted with the applicants and hence there is every possibility false implication of the members of one family due to political reasons and hence prayed to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 5. While opposing the bail application, learned APP has urged that during the alleged incident statements of 10 witnesses are recorded, who have also disclosed the names of the present applicants and the role played by them in the alleged incident. Learned APP has also placed reliance on the medical certificate, {4} which discloses severe injuries on the person of the complainant. It is also urged that one injured Bandu Gadiwal who had sustained grievous injuries was referred to Aurangabad. 6. Considering the rival submissions, it is clear that though the complainant and applicants are from different villages and there is possibility of false implication, yet the medical certificates would not lie that the complainant and others have sustained injuries. Considering the nature of injuries and the weapons used and mentioned in the medical certificates, as hard and sharp cutting instruments by which injuries are inflicted by the applicants as is alleged in the complaint, it cannot be prima facie said that the applicants are implicated falsely in this offence. Perusal of the complaint clearly discloses that the applicants and others wanted to create terror in the minds of the persons, who were present at the spot, as they were 12 to 15 in number having deadly weapons like swords, knifes and iron rods in their hands and if such persons are released on anticipatory bail, then a wrong message would go in the society and that will be in fact misuse of section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. {5} 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for applicants has contended that applicant No.4 was not present at the spot at the relevant time and in support of his contention he has placed reliance on the hall ticket of the examination issued to applicant No.4. It is urged that the applicant No.4 had appeared for second year B.Com examination between 15 and 18 hours on the day of the alleged incident. However, the incident has occurred at about 7.30 p.m. i.e. after about 90 minutes after the examination was over. Though it is urged that the distance between the place of alleged incident and the examination center is 50 km, yet considering the vehicles in which the accused had arrived, the possibility that after the paper was over he joined the accused and participated in the offence, cannot be ruled out. In view of this, the application, which is sans merits stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2403-10