(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3450 of 2011 Raju @ Ashish s/o. Abhimanyu Bahir, Age : 21 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Aher Chincholi, Taluka & District : Beed, At present Jawahar Colony, Beed, District : Beed. .. Applicant. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Peth, Beed, Taluka & District : Beed. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Beed, District : Beed. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. G.R. Ingole, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ (2) CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 36/2011, registered with Peth Police Station, Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Appa @ Moriti Vitthalrao Kadam, on 10-5-2011. It is alleged in the said complaint, and it appears that there are two groups and to settle the quarrel between them, a meeting took place on 10-5-2011, and after meeting, the complainant was returning in auto with his friend, and at this juncture, two motorcycles intercepted the said auto. It is also alleged that the applicant herein was sitting on one of the motorcycles which was driven by co-accused Bablu Shinde. The allegations are made that accused Kishor Pingle was armed with revolver and he first fired on auto rickshaw and then complainant alighted from auto rickshaw and (3) started running. Kishor fired another round and bullet hit to his buckle of waist belt and then to belly of the complainant. It is also alleged that the co-accused Mhaske was also holding the revolver and accused Mahanwar was armed with stick at the time of occurrence of the incident. 4. On the aforesaid background, learned Adv. Mr. S.J. Salunke, for the applicant, has canvassed that although name of the applicant has been reflected in the FIR, no overt act has been attributed to him during occurrence of the incident. Moreover, it is submitted that the applicant is a student, and therefore, his application be considered leniently considering his career. 5. Learned APP Mr. G.R. Ingole, for the respondent, countered the said arguments and submitted that name of the applicant has been reflected in the FIR, and therefore, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the aforesaid crime. Moreover, it is also canvassed that that the investigation is in progress and if the present application is allowed, there would be hindrance in the further progress in the investigation. It is further submitted that another accused, namely, Kishor Pingle and Mhaske are absconding, and accordingly, learned APP urged that the present application be dismissed. (4) 6. The investigation papers are made available by the learned APP for perusal purpose, and after perusal of the investigation papers, and contents of the FIR, at the outset, it is material to note that the name of the applicant has been reflected in the FIR who was very much present at the time of occurrence of the incident and arrived at the spot of the incident on one of the motorcycles as pillion rider thereon. Since name of the applicant has been reflected in the FIR, there is no possibility of false implication of him in the said crime. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that Sections 147, 148 and 149 of IPC have been applied in the present case and the co-accused Kishor Pingle fired revolver on the complainant, as well as, accused Mhaske was also armed with revolver. Admittedly, both the co-accused are absconding. Hence, considering the nature and gravity of the accusations made against the applicant, it is apparent that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further investigation in constructive manner, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, present Criminal Application stands dismissed. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE bgp/ka3450