1 CR.APL NO.452/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902. APPLN/452/2011 ROHIDAS BABASAHEB KARDILE [Criminal] AND ORS V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASH TRA AND ANR -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. N.V.Gaware, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. Mr. N.B.Narwade, Adv., to assist A.P.P. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:11-3-2011 1. Heard. The accused/applicants seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No.I/23/2011, registered at Tofkhana Police Station, dist Ahmednagar, for an offense punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 37(1) (3/135) of Bombay Police Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicants read from the record earlier events of controversy between the husband of the complainant and his mentor, the local M.L.A. The FIR of earlier events dt.28.11.2010, implicates the present accused/applicants, barring accused/applicant no.1 Rohidas and No.6 Sanjay Shivajirao Nimse. 2 CR.APL NO.452/2011 3. Learned Counsel submits, as a counterblast of arrest of her husband dt.11th Jan.,2011, false story of present crime is cooked to ensure that the nephews of the M.L.A. are sent in custody. He reiterated, no such event has taken place. 4. Learned A.P.P. submits that these persons, on the date of event i.e. on 12th Jan.,2011, barged at the residence of the complainant, witnessed by Smt. Chaya and Laxmi, therefore, it cannot be said that no event in the manner reflected in the FIR has taken place. 5. At this stage of the matter, the documents tendered by the petitioner suggests a long drawn controversy between the two groups; the petitioners nos. 1 to 3 are nephews of the local M.L.A. while petitioner no.6 is a press reporter, the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are also associated with petitioner no. 1. 6. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is no infraction of Section 452 of IPC. The manner in which primarily, the accused barged with an intention to commit house tresspass with preparation of causing hurt, and 3 CR.APL NO.452/2011 virtually assaulted the inmates, including wrongfully restraining them, and they were certainly put under threat of hurt, involves petitioners. It is not that the applicants, barring applicant No.6, have no record. The events illustrated earlier, more particularly, in FIR No.I-206/2010 dt. 12.7.2010 also implicates applicant nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Applicant No.1 Rohidas nagged and humiliated the complainant that she was taught a lesson by sending her husband in fetters on the earlier day and Rohidas then started abusing. The threat perception to complainant cannot be ignored. The applicants have, under protective umbrella of local M.L.A. have made the life miserable. Taking these aspects into consideration, at this stage of the matter, no protection to applicant/accused nos. 1 to 5, however, such protection to applicant/accused No. 6 Sanjay Nimse is extended. 7. The application for pre-arrest bail moved by applicant nos. 1 to 5 is rejected. Interim protection vacated. The application of applicant No.6 Sanjay Shivajirao Nimse is allowed. In the event of his arrest in Crime 4 CR.APL NO.452/2011 No.I-23/2011, he be released on furnishing P.R. bond and a surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and he shall attend investigator on every Sunday between 3 to 6 p.m. till filing of chargesheet. The observations are prima facie in nature. 8. Heard Mr. Gaware. The protection is extended till 16th March, 2011 with attendance condition. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE AGP/452-11crapl