FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2245/2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Arjun Jagannath Phad & anr. . . . Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra . . . Respondent Shri P.K.Chaware, Advocate for applicant Shri J.S.Gavane, APP for the State. Coram : A.V.NIRGUDE, J Date : 17/7/2009 P.C. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 29 of 2009 dt. 23/5/2009 registered with Pimpaldari Police Station, Dist. Parbhani, for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 143, 148, 147 and 149 of IPC and 135 of B.P.Act. The incident of riot and murder took place on 23/5/2009 at about 11.30 am. It is alleged that, the applicants and 19 others launched attack on the complainant and his three companions. The assailants were armed with weapons like axes, iron roads, sticks, etc. In the incident, one companion of the complainant succumbed to injuries on the sport and another, who was seriously injured, succumbed to injuries soon after his admission in the hospital. Remaining two victims sustained injuries. The complaint was lodged on the same day at about 6 pm. Soon after the incident, 19 accused were arrested. The police recorded statements of victims and eye witnesses. The incident had taken place in broad day light in public view and so, there are number of witnesses. The witnesses named the applicants as assailants and even attributed specific roles to them. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the applicants tried to convey to me that, on the day of the incident, both the applicants were attending their duties at places where they are working as Head Masters of the schools. He tried to show the material in support of the case of the applicants. At this stage, however, scrutiny of the material suggesting alibi as defence of the applicants is not possible and proper. As against this plea of alibi, there are several witnesses naming the applicants and attributing them with specific roles in the incident. The applicants cannot be granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The application, therefore, stands rejected. (A.V.Nirgude, J.) sjv/cri2245-2009