1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5705 OF 2009 Bhuleshwar Tukaram Nandgude & Anr. ...Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ---- Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. V.B. Mantri / Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar for Applicants Mr. H.J. Dedhia - APP for State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. ---- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with an offence punishable under sections.147, 148, 149, 307, 338, 427 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the FIR. In the complaint, the names of the present Applicants have been mentioned and it is clearly stated that the Applicants stopped the car of the Complainant and, thereafter, ten persons assaulted the Complainant and other persons, who were travelling in the said car. 1 4. Shri A.P. Mundargi - the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants submitted that the only role attributed to the present Applicants is that they had stopped the car. He also submitted that the names of the present Applicants have been falsely implicated in the said offence. He further submitted that in fact, the wife of the Applicant No.1 had filed N.C. complaint, in which she had mentioned that the Complainant herein and others had removed the board, which displays the name of the Applicants as owners of the said property and had committed act of trespass. He submitted that the Applicants are the owners of the said land in question and the Complainant, in fact, had removed the board from their properties and, thereafter, this false complaint has been filed. 5. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. FIR clearly discloses that the present Applicants were present at the scene of offence and stopped the car of the Complainant after which 10 to 15 persons assaulted them with bamboo sticks and other weapons. Looking at the nature of allegations which are made against the present Applicants, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Application is rejected and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)