1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1526 OF 2010 (Dharma Nimai Roy .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri V.N. Morande, Advocate for the applicant. Shri M.J. Khan, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 13TH OCTOBER, 2010. Heard. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no concern with the incident. He was just a passer- by. The allegations made against him are false. He further submits that the applicant wanted to proceed to Gadchiroli to attend the Court proceedings and he is falsely involved. Learned APP has filed the reply. The record is also produced. Perusal of the report shows that there was gathering of the people and agitation was going on. In the report, it is stated that the applicant was travelling in his vehicle namely Tata Safari. The vehicle was stopped by the police authorities who were engaged in controlling the law and order situation. It is further stated in the report that the police official i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police asked the applicant to take his vehicle towards the road side and get down from the vehicle. One Arvind snatched the key of the vehicle and handed it over to the applicant and asked to run away from the spot. The applicant started the vehicle and proceeded in speed from the place. In the process, some police personnel as well as some citizens, who were present on the spot, got injured. The statements of Shekhar, Waman and Salim Pathan are recorded. The statements clearly reveal that the applicant drove the vehicle in higher speed. The persons including some police personnel also got injured. There is prima facie material against the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the 2 other accused are released on anticipatory bail and prays for parity. Perusal of record clearly shows the involvement of the applicant and his behaviour. The reply also mentions about the criminal antecedents of the applicant. Apart from this, the record clearly establishes the presence and the act of the applicant. In our opinion, this is not a fit case to grant any protection to the applicant. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.