(1) CRI.APP. 3643.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3643 OF 2010 1. Jagannath S/o Panditrao Yadav Age : 38 years, Occu: Agri., 2. Balasaheb S/o Bhujangrao Yadav Age : 26 years, Occu.: Agri., 3. Deepak S/o Pralhadrao Yadav Age : 28 years, Occu.: Agri., 4. Kirteshwar S/o Dnyanoba Yadav Age : 22 years, Occu.: Agri., 5. Narsinh @ Gotya S/o Hanumantrao Yadav, Age : 24 years, Occu.: Govt. Service 6. Balu @ Suryakantrao S/o Murlidhar Yadav, Age : 28 years, Occu.: Agri. All R/o Khadka, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth Dist. Parbhani (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor High Court Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent ... Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State ... (2) CRI.APP. 3643.2010 CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned Advocate and learned APP. 3. Perusal of the FIR and investigation papers purport to show that on 22.8.2010, the incident involving uncle of the informant had taken place in the night time. One auto-rickshaw wherein the applicant no.1 was travelling, was stopped by uncle of the informant on way to village Kanhegaon from Gangakhed. There took place mutual fighting on account of excessive demand for payment, made by the auto-rickshaw driver. On the next day i.e. on 23.8.2010, at about 10.30 am. the informant alongwith his mother, uncle Gautam and brother went to village Hadka in order to make enquiry about the earlier incident with the applicant no.1-Jagannath. It is alleged that when they had reached the square, they noticed the applicant no.1 proceeding alongwith one Ravindra Mokashi and therefore they intercepted both (3) CRI.APP. 3643.2010 the said persons. At that time, the applicant no.2 Balasaheb alias Balu Yadav pelted stone on head of the informant. It appears that the other applicants subsequently pelted stones on members of the group of the informant who had thronged at the place after the telephonic communication. 4. It prima facie appears that there was certain earlier dispute between uncle of the informant and the applicant no.1 and therefore on next day morning, the informant approached the applicant no.1 for seeking his explanation. Though, FIR prima facie shows that the informant wanted to make enquiry about the earlier incident, yet considering the averments in the FIR, it may be inferred that the informant and his group members had gone to village Hadka in order to retaliate and the attitude of the group members of the informant was revengeful. It appears that the informant and other injured suffered certain contused and lacerated wounds which are of simple nature. There is no grievous injury caused to either of the injured (4) CRI.APP. 3643.2010 persons and probably the incident is outcome of the vendetta which is sequel of the earlier incident involving uncle of the informant and the applicant no.1. FIR does not show that the applicants caused any intentional insult to the informant on the ground of his caste. Needless to say section 3(1)(x) or (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is prima facie not attracted. 5. Under the above circumstances, the applicants deserve liberty during the course of investigation. 6. In the result, the applicants are directed to be released on bail as per order dated 14.9.2010 on condition that they shall attend the concerned Police Station on each Sunday between 10.00 am. to 2.00 pm. and shall co-operate during the course of investigation. They shall attend the concerned Police Station for four consecutive Sundays or till filing of the final report/charge-sheet as the case (5) CRI.APP. 3643.2010 may be, whichever is earlier. The anticipatory bail will come to an end on filing of the chargesheet. Application disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp