HIFJUR ABDUL REHMAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application is filed for relief of anticipatory bail. Both sides are heard. This Court has perused papers of investigation. Crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Pathan. He has made allegations that in one incident dated 11/9/13 the present applicant assaulted him with weapons like handle of spade. He assaulted on his head. Allegations are made that Hifjur applicant No. 1 and Nawaz gave blows of handle of spade on his head and 3rd applicant Ambekar hit him by using stone. Allegations are made that Hifjur caused injury on his chest. This Court has perused injury certificate. Complainant sustained as many as 7 injuries which were contusions, abrasions. All the injuries are described as simple injuries by medical officer of Rural Health Center, Paithan. Some record is produced to show that the complainant received treatment in private hospital like Mehraj General Hospital but that record is in respect of Spondilites and Cervical problem C-5, C-6. The injuries described do not fall under definition of grievous injuries given in Section 320 of IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicants relied on case Chandra Kanjappa Kuchchikurwe V/s State of Maharashtra and another, 2013 ALLMR(Cri) 626 and also in 2007 (6) LJSOFT (URC) 7 Ehsan Ul Haque A. Nadvi V/s State of Maharashtra and another] and 2007 (3) LJSOFT (URC) 14 [Rajesh Aanada Shetty and another V/s State of Maharashtra] When the crime is registered for offence u/s 324 of IPC, this Court held that as offence u/s 324 of IPC is still bailable in Maharashtra and as no notification is issued to adopt the Central law in that regard, the application for anticipatory bail is not tenable. In other 2 reported cases, this Court presided over by other Hon'ble Judge of this Court granted relief of anticipatory bail by holding that definition of grievous injury did not fall u/s 320 of IPC and even when the crime was registered for offence u/s 326 of IPC, relief of anticipatory bail was granted. If this Court makes observation that when offence does not fall u/s 326 of IPC, this Court will have to observe that the proceeding for anticipatory bail is not tenable. In view of this position of law, this Court holds that no relief can be granted by this Court u/s 436 of Cr.P.C. to the applicant. It is open for them to surrender before JMFC and apply for bail. In view of the aforesaid observations, application stands disposed of as not tenable.