1 CA5044/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5044 OF 2011 1. Balaji Shivdas Munjane 2. Sanjay s/o Shivdas Munjane Applicants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Smt. Madhaveshwari D. Thube Mhase, Advocate for the applicants Shri D.R. Kale, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1. The applicants apprehend arrest in CR No. I – 176 of 2011, dated 2nd November, 2011, registered with Chakur Police Station, District Latur, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Both the applicants have been assigned a specific role in as much as applicant No. 1 Balaji inflicted blow of sprinkler iron pipe, whereas 2 CA5044/2011 applicant No. 2 Sanjay alleged to have used katti. The medical certificates are produced. Victim Manik has suffered injuries in the nature of contusions on right arm near elbow as well as on shoulder. Another victim by name Ganpat has suffered contusion to his left shoulder and fracture to his metacarpel and victim Havgirao suffered contusion on his left face. 3. According to the applicants, the genesis of the aforesaid incident is an attack by the persons who claimed to be victims in this F.I.R. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the present applicants can be said to have exercised right of private defence. She also submitted that co-accused have been released on regular bail. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that the considerations for the anticipatory bail are different from considerations for grant of regular bail. Hence, release of co- accused will have no bearing on the present anticipatory bail application. 3 CA5044/2011 4. Use of iron pipe as well as katti clearly indicates that the present applicants were armed with these weapons and used them in the course of occurrence. Even if the stand of the present applicants is accepted that they have exercised the right of private defence, is surely in excess of right of private defence. In view of above and considering the papers before the Court, this is not a fit case where the Court should grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail stands rejected. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/8/12/11