SUNIL GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.65/16 under Section 308/354B/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Bindapur. Status report is on record.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Manoj Kumar Gupta and Sunil Gupta urged that they have been falsely implicated in this case. FIR No.73/2016 has already been lodged against the complainant party for inflicting injuries to the petitioners and their family members. The complainant party has been granted anticipatory bail in the said FIR No.73/2016. They were the aggressors. The complainant along with nine associates had arrived at their house and they all were armed with 'dandas'. They all inflicted injuries and also outraged the modesty of 'X' (assumed name). It is further urged that the FIR in question has been lodged in connivance with the police though intimation about the occurrence to the PCR was conveyed by the petitioners at first instance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner- Mohd.Tokir urged that no role has been assigned to him. The petitioner was not armed with any weapon. His mere presence along with co-accused is not enough to decline anticipatory bail.