1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANTABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.938 OF 2010 Meena Ananda Jagdhane ... APPLICANT V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.K. Temkar, Advocate for applicant Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 19th March, 2010. ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest under C.R. No. 20/2009, registered at Akole Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 325, 326, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant had preferred application for anticipatory bail earlier bearing No.19/2010 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, but same was rejected by order dated 2.3.2010. Thereafter the applicant approached before this Court by way of present application and interim 2 protection was granted to her by order dated 12.3.2010 and same is in force till today. 3. It appears that, the complaint was registered on the report lodged by the complainant Smt. Laxmibai Damu Jagdhane on 18.2.2009 alleging that on 17.2.2009 at about 12.00 noon the applicant and other assailants namely Dipak Salve, Ananda Govind Jagdhane, Archana and Sharda came to her house by an open jeep and they were armed with iron rods and sticks and thereby they assaulted the complainant and other victims and thereby they sustained grievous injuries on their hands and legs and thereafter the said assailants fled away. 4. On the face of the said position, the learned counsel for the applicant urged that there are sweeping allegations in the F.I.R. and no specific role has been attributed to each of the assailants and no overt act has been spelt out in the F.I.R. involving the assailants as well as applicants in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the injuries stated in the F.I.R. are not caused on the vital parts of the body and the applicant herein has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the other co-accused persons namely Ananda Govind Jagdhane and Dipak Salve were arrested under the present C.R. on 3.2.2010 and they were released on regular bail on 15.2.2010, as well as other female co- accused namely Sharda and Archana have been granted anticipatory bail by 3 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 2.3.2010. It is further submitted that almost more than one year has been elapsed after registering the aforesaid offence and, therefore, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant. The learned counsel further urged that the applicant is a physically handicapped/ disabled person having 40% disability and annexed the disability certificate to that effect at Exhibit C to support the said contention. 5. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application and submitted that the applicant was absconding for more than one year and she was not available for the purpose of investigation. it is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that the complainant Laxmibai sustained grievous hurt during the aforesaid assault and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to carry out the further investigation in proper perspective. 6. After perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.P., apparently, the F.I.R. discloses sweeping allegations and there is no specific role attributed to the assailants, and more particularly, to the applicant herein and no particular overt act has been spelt out in respect of the applicant during the occurrence of the incident. Moreover, on perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., it does not appear that the injuries caused to the 4 victim were caused on the vital parts of their body. Besides that, the important aspect cannot be overlooked that the applicant is a physically handicapped person having 40% disability as stated in the disability certificate annexed by the applicant at Exhibit C to the present application. As regards the abscondance of the applicant, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that she was very well available and she is carrying out agricultural activities and the allegations of abscondance bear no substance. 7. Besides that, the other two male accused Ananda Jagdhane and Dipak Salve were arrested and they were in the police custody and they have been already enlarged on bail on 15.2.2010. Besides that, the other two female accused persons namely Sharda and Archana also have been granted anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 2.3.2010. 8. In the circumstances, more than one year has been elapsed after lodging the F.I.R. and considering the aforesaid aspect, I am of the view that there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant and, therefore, the criminal application succeeds and the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail as prayed for. 9. In the result, the interim protection granted to the applicant vide order dated 12.3.2010 stands confirmed and it is directed that, in the 5 event of arrest of the applicant under C.R. No.20/2009, registered at Akole Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 325, 326, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, she be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount. However, the applicant is directed to attend the concerned police station as and when required and cooperate in the investigation and she shall not influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence directly or indirectly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) fmp/cri938.10