1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1028 OF 2010 Sudam s/o Chindhu Ghuge & ors. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for applicants Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 26th March, 2010 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicants, apprehending their arrest under C.R. No.22/2010 registered at Pahur Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 325, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the complaint was registered on the report lodged by one Anita Vishwanath Ghuge, wherein it is alleged that on 8.3.2010 at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. when her husband 2 namely Vishwanath Eknath Ghuge was at home at village Wakdi, the applicant No.2 Bhushan Sudam Ghuge and applicant No.4 Rahul Kashinath Ghuge came on motorcycle and told them that they would settle their dispute of well for Rs.20,000/- and asked the complainant and her husband to follow them. Accordingly, her husband namely Vishwanath followed them to the house of her father-in-law i.e. applicant No.9 Eknath Ganpat Ghuge and when she followed them and when she reached to the house of her father-in-law, she noticed mob of people in front of the house of her father-in-law at about 3.00 to 3.30 p.m., she heard the noise and hence, she entered into the mob and found that present applicants were assaulting her husband namely Vishwanath by fist blows and leg kicks by lying him down. Hence, she intervened and rescued her husband from the mob and she took her husband to Jalgaon and got him admitted to Civil Hospital. 4. On the said background, the learned counsel for the applicants urged that although the incident occurred on 18.2.2010, the F.I.R. came to be lodged after the delay of two days i.e. on 20.2.2010. The learned counsel for the applicants also canvassed that the applicant No.3 Kashinath Eknath Ghuge had filed one complaint on 18.2.2010 itself at about 12.00 noon prior to occurrence of the alleged incident against the victim namely Vishwanath which is produced at Exhibit B, and thereafter the said 3 victim was taken to Fattepur Outpost by the Police Constable and hence, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the occurrence of incident as alleged in the F.I.R. at 3.30 p.m. on the same day is improbable. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants further pointed out that the applicant No.8 Amol Sudam Ghuge was on duty on 18.2.2010 and 19.2.2010 as Assistant Teacher in the school situated at Sukali, Panchayat Samiti Jalgaon Jamod, District Buldhana and the said certificate dated 20.2.2010 is produced at Page 37. The learned counsel for applicants also tendered the certificate across the bar today during the course of arguments, dated 23.3.2010 in respect of applicant No.2 Bhushan Sudam Ghuge showing that he also was on duty on 18.2.2010 at Gaurishankar Secondary School, Ravanje, Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicant No.9 Eknath Ganpat Ghuge is about 71 years old and his complicity in the alleged offence is improbable. The said certificate is taken on recored and marked as Document “X”. 6. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that there are five eye witnesses whose statements have been recorded during the course of investigation and they have raised finger against the applicants as the culprits. 4 The learned A.P.P. also pointed out from the post mortem notes that the victim Vishwanath expired due to head injury and the cause of death mentioned in the post mortem notes is due to CRA due to intracerebral due to bleed due to head injury. It is also canvassed that the investigation is still under progress and apprehension is posed that if the applicants are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they may create hindrance in the investigation since the complainant Anita has filed application to that effect on 24.3.2010 to concerned police station. 7. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the alleged incident occurred on 18.2.2010, but the F.I.R. came to be lodged on 20.2.2010 and the victim Vishwanath expired on 22.2.2010. Moreover, although there are allegations of assault upon the victim by fist blows and leg kicks by number of persons i.e. the applicants herein, it is curious to note that the post mortem from Column No.17 discloses superficial abrasion over right elbow and multiple superficial abrasion over left elbow over exterior aspect and contusion on left side back. True it is that the cause of death mentioned in the post mortem notes is due to CRA due to intracerebral due to bleed due to head injury, but apparently, the fact remains that the allegations in the F.I.R. in respect of assault upon the victim by number of persons i.e. applicants herein by fist 5 blows and leg kicks and the external injuries mentioned in the post mortem notes Column no.17 do not co-relate with each other. 8. Apart from that, the certificate dated 20.2.2010 produced at Page 37 in respect of applicant No.8 Amol Sudam Ghuge apparently discloses that he was on duty on the relevant day as well as the certificate dated 23.3.2010 produced across the bar during the course of arguments by learned counsel for the applicants in respect of applicant No.2 Bhushan Sudam Ghuge also apparently discloses that he was on duty on the relevant day. 9. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that present application is required to be allowed partly in respect of applicant No.2 Bhushan s/o Sudam Ghuge and applicant No.8 Amol s/o Sudam Ghuge, but the present application in respect of other applicants cannot be considered for the grant of anticipatory bail since the investigation is still under progress and apparently, their custodial interrogation is necessary for the further progress of the investigation in constructive manner. 10. In the result, present application succeeds in respect of applicant No.2 Bhushan s/o Sudam Ghuge and applicant No.8 Amol s/o Sudam Ghuge and it is directed that, in the event of arrest of applicant No.2 Bhushan s/o Sudam Ghuge and applicant No.8 6 Amol s/o Sudam Ghuge under C.R. No.22/2010, registered at Pahur Police Station, District Jalgaon, they be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount by each of them. The applicant No.2 Bhushan s/o Sudam Ghuge and applicant No.8 Amol s/o Sudam Ghuge are directed to attend the concerned police station as and when required and cooperate in the investigation and they shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly/ indirectly. 11. However, the application of the other applicants i.e. applicant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 stands rejected. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri1028.10