1 ABA-333.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} Javed Abdul Rahim Shaikh & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri S.V. Marwadi for the Applicants. Ms R.V. Newton, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: APRIL 21, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by a mother and her two sons who are alleged to have assaulted one Sairunisa, a neighbour, on account of a petty quarrel. Applicant No.1-Javed is alleged to have hit Sairunisa with an iron rod which led to fracture of Sairunisa's nasal bone. Considering the nature of the allegations made, the presence of applicant Nos.2 and 3, that is Sadiq and Anisa, in custody for the purpose of interrogation may not be necessary. Hence, in the event of the arrest of applicant Nos.2 and 3 in C.R. No.57 of 2011 of Meghwadi Police 2 ABA-333.11 Station, Mumbai, applicant Nos.2 and 3 be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs. 15,000/- per person on the condition that the applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall report at the police station concerned on 26-4-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O.. The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 2. As far as applicant No.1-Javed is concerned, his application for anticipatory bail is rejected. He may surrender before the appropriate Magistrate on 26-4-2011 where the learned Magistrate may consider the necessity of remanding applicant-Javed to custody or admitting him to bail, as the case may be. Since applicant-Javed has been granted time till 26-4-2011, the police shall restrain their hands against Javed till then. 3 ABA-333.11 3. This order, in so far as it relates to applicant Nos.2 and 3, shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicants may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 4. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)