1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2211 OF 2010 1. Rajendra Dadaba Palve, Age-28 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 2. Dadaba Rambhau Palve, Age-55 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 3. Laxman Rambhau Palve, Age-52 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 4. Gulbas Dadaba Palve, Age-45 years, Occu-Household. All R/o.Badewadi, Tq.Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 18/06/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.353/2009, registered in Pathardi Police Station of Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned APP, and perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is brought to my notice that the CR in which the present applicants are seeking bail, was registered in Pathardi Police Station about the incident occurred on 27/12/2009 in front of one Maruti Temple, around 7.00 p.m. in which according to the complainant Navnath Rangrao Palwe these applicants and two others were the members of the unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and attacked on his father i.e. Rangnath. Injury certificate shows that he has sustained two injuries. This incident was reported in the police station at about 1.15 p.m. and the complainant and his father were treated in the hospital at around 11.00 a.m. At the same time, it is brought to my notice that the complaint was lodged against Navnath, his father and other relatives by the first applicant in this application about the incident occurred at 6.00 a.m. on the same day, in front of residential premises of these applicants, in which Dattatraya was seriously injured and has sustained 4 injuries. This incident was reported in the same police station at about 12.05 p.m. and the first applicant and his father were treated in the hospital at about 10.30 a.m. Thus the fact is clear that the incident might have occurred in the early hours as stated in the earlier CR No.352/2009 for which the offence was registered against the complainant in CR No.353/2009 in the same police station at the hands of first applicant. Possibility can not be rulled out that to give counter blast and not to disclose as to 3 how these applicants sustained injuries earlier, the complainant might have lodged this complaint. Even though the offence is about bodily injuries sustained by the complainant and his father in CR No. 353/2009, above referred possibility can not be rulled out. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail, but on certain conditions. Hence order, O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicants be released on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.353/2009, on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. This protection is granted till filing of the charge sheet. 4. Applicants to co-operate the investigation agency. 5. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.2211-10