PRASHANT SHANKAR RUMADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) THE applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.95 of 2007 of Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is mainly under Sections 326, 452 and 427 of IPC.

(3.) AS far as accused Vishal and Harshal Rane are concerned, they are not named in the F.I.R., but it is the prosecution case that they had accompanied Prashant on 27.3.2007 and they also took part in the incident. I have perused the injury certificate. Injuries are not at all serious in nature. It is not the prosecution case that any article has to be recovered from any of the accused persons. However, the learned A.P.P. states that as far as accused Vishal and Harshal are concerned, as they are not named in the complaint, hence test identification parade has to be held and hence, their custody is required. Mr.Khandeparkar, the learned counsel for the applicants states that for holding the test identification parade, all the applicants will report to the concerned police station from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. for a period of 15 days from 7.6.2007. Looking to these facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.