Cri. Apln. Nos. 2364 & 2365/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2364 OF 2011 1. Gahininath Jagannath Shirsath, 2. Ashok Jagannath Shirsath, 3. Rajendra Jagannath Shirsath, All above R/o. Takli-Manur, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Dnyandeo Uttam Dhakne, 5. Shivaji Dnyandeo Dhakne, Both above R/o. Chumbhali, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2365 OF 2011 Amol Vishwanth Bade, R/o. Yeli, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for applicants in both applications. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for State/respondent in both applications. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 22nd June, 2011. Cri. Apln. Nos. 2364 & 2365/11 2 PER COURT : 1. Both these applications are filed for anticipatory bail in Cr. No. 191/2011 which is registered in Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar for offences punishable under sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, etc. of the Indian Penal Code and also for offence punishable under section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act. The APP has made papers of investigation available which include record in respect of treatment given to the complainant. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Bhagwan Eknath Bade. He is worker of political party BJP and accused/applicants are also workers of the same political party. The complainant has described the incident which took place on 23.4.2011. He has contended that he had prevented the applicants from entering the place where Shri. Gopinath Mundhe was taking lunch and due to that the applicants and the persons of the group of applicants had become angry. He has contended that he overheard the conversation which was going on in between the applicants and their men and they had prepared a plain to attack him and finish him. He has contended that after the function of Pathardi was over, Pratap Dhakne gave signal to his men, who were present in the Sumo vehicle and these persons rushed towards complainant. He has made allegations that applicant Dnyandeo Dhakne was holding a stick, Shivaji Dhakne was holding a sword, Amol Bade and Cri. Apln. Nos. 2364 & 2365/11 3 Ashok Shirsat were holding sticks, applicant Rajendra Shirsat was holding a revolver and applicant Gahininath Shirsat was holding a cookery/chopper. He has contended that he gave call to his brother Somnath Khedkar to alert them and the aforesaid persons attacked him. He has contended that applicant Gahininath Shirsat gave blow to him with cookery and when he tried to avoid the blow, the blow hit on his backside. He has contended that from that time till 3.5.2011 he was unconscious and he was taking treatment in Rubi Hall Hospital, Pune. The report came to be given on 11.5.2011 and the crime came to be registered. The APP submitted that the offence is serious in nature and so custodial interrogation of all the applicants is necessary. 3. The Advocate of the applicants has produced some record to show that in respect of the same incident Bhagwat Jaybhaye, Police Offier, gave report on the date of incident and on the basis of the said report Cr. No. 159/2011 came to be registered for offences punishable under sections 160, 324, 149 etc. of the Indian penal Code and also for offence under section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act. It appears that police were present at the place of function and they noticed that there was fighting between members of two groups of BJP Political party. In the report given by the Police Officer, he has made allegations that present applicant Dnyandeo Dhakne was assaulted with a hockey stick and he was present in the rioting. He has mentioned that Bhagwant alias Cri. Apln. Nos. 2364 & 2365/11 4 Satya Mahadev Khedkar, resident of Kanoshi gave blow of chopper to present complainant Bhagwan Eknath Bade and blow hit on the backside of the complainant. This chopper was abandoned by assailant and it was also recovered. Thus, the report of the Police Officer given immediately after the incident is not consistent with the report given in the present case by the complainant. It was submitted that in case of murder of father of applicant Nos. 1 to 3, a relative of complainant Bhagwan Bade was convicted and due to that Bhagwan Bade developed a grudge against the applicants and they are falsely implicated. 4. The papers produced show that the complainant was not unconscious when he was admitted in Rubi Hall Clinic. He had given statement in the hospital in respect of use of knife on left buttock in the incident dated 23.4.2011. This circumstance create probability that even when there was an opportunity to give report immediately after the incident, Bhagwan Bade did not give report. Thus, there is a report given by the Police Officer in which allegations are made that there was fighting and some other persons used dangerous weapons against the present complainant. The papers show that PCR was obtained against applicant No. 1 Gahininath and applicant No. 2 Ashok in the crime registered on the basis of report given by the Police Officer. The record shows that the weapons were found on the spot and they are seized by the police. Cri. Apln. Nos. 2364 & 2365/11 5 5. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that there is no need of custodial interrogation and it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. These observations are prima facie and will not come in the way of the Trial Court while deciding the case. 6. So both the applications are allowed. Interim relief granted in Criminal application No. 2365/2011 stands confirmed. In the event of arrest of applicants in respect of Criminal Application Nos.2364/2011, in Cr. No. 191/2011 registered in Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar for offences punishable under sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, etc. of IPC and also for offence punishable under section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act, they are to be released on bail on furnishing PR and SB of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) by each of them. All the applicants are not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/ca2364 & 2365/11