1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4996 OF 2010 Shaikh Afroz Khan S/o Sk. Sheru and others. ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. P.B. Waghmare, advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 7 th December, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 151/2010 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Beed. They filed first anticipatory bail application in the Court of Sessions, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, they filed second anticipatory bail application before the Court of Sessions, which also came to be rejected. Now they have filed third anticipatory bail application in this Court on the ground that the offence would not come within the ambit of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, they may be released on bail. 2 3. Having heard the learned Advocate for the applicants, what appears is that reliance is being placed on certain observations of this Court in the order dated 1st October, 2010, rendered while deciding Criminal Application No. 3487/2010. This Court granted regular bail to other two co-accused for the reason that the injured persons had received simple injuries and prima facie there was no material to indicate intention to do away with the life of the informant. Though the offence may not fall within the ambit of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code yet the involvement of the applicants in the alleged crime can not be regarded as based on unfounded allegations. There is prima facie evidence to infer that the applicants are involved in the alleged crime which may not be for the offence under Section 307 but may be in the context of other offences as alleged and the nature of such offences can not be predetermined at this juncture. The applicants are not entitled to seek anticipatory bail merely on the basis of certain observations in the context of the bail order granted in favour of other co-accused, which is bail granted under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in as much as the yardstick to be applied for grant of liberty under Section 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code are quite different. Unless it is shown that the applicants apprehend their arrest which may be effected without any substantial reason and they are not actually involved in 3 the crime, or that their humiliation is without substantial reason, the application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code can not be considered. 4. In this view of the matter, the application is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri4996.10