1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3966 OF 2010 Gorakh S/o Vithal Pathare and another ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for applicants. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondents. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 6th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The application is for anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. 3. Perusal of the F.I.R. prima facie indicate that the applicants were named as assailants. The injured victim gave the F.I.R. while he was under medical treatment in City Care hospital at Ahmednagar. The applicant no.1 had allegedly taken J.C.B. machine of injured informant on rent but had not paid rental amount. The victim alleged that though money due from the applicant no.1 was demanded yet he declined to pay and threatened to "see him". The F.I.R. purports to show that on 07.09.2010 at about 5.30/6 p.m., the victim was attending business 2 of his hotel as "Hotel New Prashant", when both the applicants along with their accomplishes approached him. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the applicant no.1 was armed with sword, the applicant no.2 was armed with stick and other accused were armed with hockey sticks. They assaulted the victim. They took away the cash amount of Rs.1,060/- from the counter. 4. The learned Advocate submits that the injury certificate issued by District Hospital, Ahmednagar does not show any incised wound referable to use of sword, and therefore, the applicant no.1 may not be assailant as alleged by the victim. At this juncture, it is difficult to countenance such argument. One does not know as to in what manner the sword was used. The victim was found to bear four contused lacerated wounds and the abrasions. Moreover, there is direct occular evidence against both the applicants as per the recitals of the F.I.R., which require due verification during course of the investigation. Needless to say that their custodial interrogation is necessary for effecting recoveries of weapons used in the crime. Hence, the application is without merits and is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri3966.10