1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1788 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.681 OF 2011 Rakesh Rajendra Rathod @ .... Applicants Rajnish & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/by Mr. Abhishek Yende for applicant in BA 1788 of 2011. Mr. Rahul Arote for applicant in Appln. No.681 of 2011 (Intervenor). Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 2nd December, 2011 P.C. 1. The Application No.681 of 2011 is filed by the original complainant seeking leave to intervene in the bail application to oppose the same. The application is allowed. All the parties are heard. 2. The applicants herein were arrested on 8th October 2011 in C.R. No.270 of 2011 registered with Kandivli Police Station, initially for 2 the offences punishable under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. Later the offences punishable under Section 326 and under Section 307 and also Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code came to be included from time to time in the complaint. The police also added one Baijnath Yadav, Kamlesh Gupta and Brij Mohan as wanted accused on 10th October 2011. 3. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 7th October 2011, at about 5.15 pm, applicant No.1 was standing in front of Super Mattress Shop near a Tata Indigo Car. When the complainant crossed him and went ahead, he made a sound by his mouth and signaled two persons by pointing a finger at the complainant. Those two unknown persons assaulted the complainant with a hammer and a chopper. Then applicant no.2, who was hiding nearby came forward and both the applicants fled away from the place of incident. The complainant first went to Bhagwati Hospital for treatment, where he was treated and discharged. Then he went to a private hospital for C.T. Scan of brain. According to the prosecution, the subsequent investigation shows serious injuries sustained by the complainant. The injuries sustained by the complainant as described in the remand application, on two 3 different dates read as follows: Injury as on 9 th October 2011 : Slightly depressed fracture of the left parietal bone indenting the underlying parenchyma. No focal parenchymal abnormality detected. Injury mark on the abdomen with sharp object & Lt. Shoulder region. Injury as on 14 th October 2011 : Persistent depressed fracture seen along the left high parietal convexity skull vault indenting the underlying brain parenchyma. Overlying scalp hematoma has significantly regressed. Brain parenchyma appears unremarkable. Rest of the scan features are unchanged. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the applicants along with the absconding accused and two more persons had assaulted him, to take revenge for the tip given by the complainant to the Police about regards illegal betting over cricket by the applicants and others. It appears that thereafter the complainant was apprehensive of repercussions and had approached initially this Court and later the concerned Police Station for police protection. The police did not find any substance in the apprehension of the complainant that there was likelihood of assault on him. Therefore, protection was refused to him. 4 5. Perusal of the descriptions of injuries shows that there is hardly any difference in the descriptions. Besides neither of the applicants is the actual assailant. The complaint as filed, specifies no role whatsoever as against applicant no.2. Hence, the order. O R D E R (i) The applicants be released on bail in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousands only) each with one surety in the like amount. (ii) The applicants shall attend Kandivli Police Station once a week on every Monday for a period of six months from today. (iii) They 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 for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)