1 APPLN.237-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2011 Shri Nitin Bhivaji Shivale and 5 others. .. Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. .... Mr.Nilesh Wable, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs.S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 22nd MARCH, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by six accused persons apprehending their arrest in C.R. No.30 of 2011 registered with Sikrapur Police Station, District – Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 of Indian Penal Code and also offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons. 2. There are total 12 accused persons involved in the said offence of rioting and injuries to the complainant and his family members. It appears that the complainant had accosted one of the co-accused as to why he is giving trouble to the sister of the complainant. On this, becoming enraging the said co-accused and 2 APPLN.237-11 other associates - including the present Applicants, created riot like situation in front of the house of complainant at the midnight between 14 th & 15 th February, 2011 and assaulted the complainant. 3. The names of all the present Applicants (who are original accused Nos.1, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11) are mentioned in the First Information Report including the other co-accused. During the said incident, the Applicants and their associates entered the house of complainant and ransacked the rooms and destroyed various articles including the articles in the kitchen. 4. During the arguments, the learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR as it was lodged at about 2:00 p.m. on 15 th February, 2011, whereas the alleged incident had occurred at about 1:30 a.m. in the midnight. Considering the circumstances under which the said incident happened and considering that the house of complainant was ransacked by 12 people - then armed with deadly weapons and riot like situation has been created, such apparent delay in lodging the FIR cannot be considered at this stage as a mitigating circumstance so as to doubt the case of the complainant as to false implication of the Applicants. 3 APPLN.237-11 5. The second argument advanced on behalf of the Applicants that other co-accused are already released on bail. However, such bail was granted after their arrest by the Police during the investigation and after their initial remand. As such, present Applicants cannot equate themselves with the case as against other co-accused who are already released on bail. What is asked in the present application by the applicants is an extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail when specifically their names are mentioned in the FIR and apparently there is nothing to suggest on their behalf that they were falsely implicated and they are innocent persons. 6. In that view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a case in which the Applicants can be protected with the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the order : :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.237 of 2011 for anticipatory bail stands rejected. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD