1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.679 OF 2011 1. Sanjay P. Koli, Aged 36 years, 2. Avinash Pandurang Koli, both residents of Flat No.1201, Grow More, Plot No.5, Sector-2, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent through NRI Sagari Police Station, Navi Mumbai. Mr.Onkar V. Warange for applicants. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the State. Mr.V.D.Upadhyay for the intervenor/complainant. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 16th August 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned APP for the State and Mr.V.D.Upadhyay for the intervenor/original complainant. 2. The applicants seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.28/I/2011 registered at N.R.I. Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 324, 326, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to them, in view of the counter case registered against the original complainant Manohar Koli, they have been falsely implicated by a belated complaint lodged by said Manohar Koli. 2 3. According to the prosecution, the incident had occurred during the night between 28th February 2010 and 1st March 2010. About that incident, the applicant no.2 Avinash Koli had lodged a report at the Police Station which was registered as Crime No.I/31/2010 under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code against several persons including the said Manohar Koli. About that incident, Manohar Koli and other accused persons were arrested. Manohar Koli filed a complaint on 4th June 2011 in the Court of JMFC, Vashi under sections 324, 326 and 506-Part-II against nine persons including the present applicants who are shown as accused nos.1 and 2 therein. In that complaint he sought a direction to the Police to investigate the case under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. As per the direction of the Court, FIR was registered at the Police Station On 14th June 2011. According to the complainant, he had approached the Police during the relevant time to lodge a report but the Police had refused to accept or record the report. Though he approached several authorities of the Police but as no action was taken, therefore, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate. Hence, there was a delay. 4. As per the report lodged by Manohar Koli there was some dispute about land allotted by CIDCO under the scheme known as 12.5% scheme wherein the developed plots are allotted to the persons whose agricultural lands were acquired by the CIDCO for the purposes of development of Navi Mumbai. The dispute had occurred about right to such land. According to Manohar Koli, all the accused persons had assaulted him and his family members with sticks and iron rods and he himself had suffered fracture of right ankle. He was examined at the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Hospital on 23rd March 2011 and the medical report shows that there was complaint of fracture of right ankle and according to the complainant, the plaster was given to him at MGM Hospital. Thus, the complainant appear to 3 have suffered only fracture of right ankle with a stick, for which an offence under section 325 could be registered and not under section 326 of the IPC.. On the other hand, both the applicants and several other members of their family appear to have suffered injuries for which Manohar Koli and his companions were arrested. 5. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, in my opinion, prima facie case under section 325 of the IPC is made out which is bailable but report has been lodged under section 326 of the IPC which is not bailable. Prima facie, no case is made out for taking an action under section 326 of the IPC.. Therefore, in my opinion, anticipatory bail has to be granted. 6. In the event of arrest of the applicants in Crime No.28/I/2011 registered at N.R.I. Sagari Police Station, Navi Mumbai, the applicants be released on their executing P.R.Bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like sum. The applicants shall make themselves available to the Police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not misuse the bail in any manner. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4