VITTHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. For the reasons stated in the Criminal Application No.3184/2019, the same is allowed and the learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to assist the learned APP at the time of hearing of Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1209/2019. The application is accordingly disposed of.

(2.) The applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.182 of 2019 registered with Biloli Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Their applications with similar prayer bearing Bail Application No.193 of 2019 came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, District Nanded vide order dated 03.09.2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that name of the present applicants are not mentioned in the FIR though the informant is the eye witness and is also injured person. The allegations have been made against the accused persons named in the FIR alone and no role whatsoever has been ascribed to any other person. It has been simply alleged in the complaint that some other persons were also accompanied accused persons named in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant nos. 1 and 2 are hailing from village Pimpalgaon, Taluka Naigaon, District Nanded, applicant no. 3 is hailing from village Kautha, Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded whereas applicant nos. 4 and 5 are hailing from village Laghul, Taluka Biloli, District Nanded. Applicant - Balaji is presently serving in Latur District. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that afterthought in the statement of certain injured persons in respect of names of the present applicants have been made. Furthermore, even though the allegations have been made against the applicants, no specific role has been attributed to each of them. The antecedents of the applicants are clear. The applicants may be released on anticipatory bail.