DILIP Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in an offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 302, 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal code. Similar application was made before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, but it has been rejected by the said Court on 6-12-1989.

(2.) THE petitioners 1 and 2, who are the real brothers, are coming before the Court with the case that they are persons of status in the society and they have been falsely implicated due to political rivallary. The petitioner 1 Dilip is a Municipal Councillor at Kamgaon. Both these petitioners are the businessmen having their business at Khamgaon. It is their contention that they are active workers of the Congress (I) party and the petitioner 1 is also the head of the local gymnacium called Chandanshesh Akhada. It is also their case that there is a rival group of BJP and Shiv Sena which are controlling the other gymnacium called Hanuman Akhada. There were parliamentary elections in the last month in which the petitioners were the active workers of Congress (I) party whereas the deceased Ramkrishna Thombre was the worker of the B. J. P. There used to be always skirmishes between these two groups and the prosecutions/counter prosecutions have been launched against them. On 30th November, 1989 at about 6. 30 pm or so, the deceased Ram Krishna was assaulted by some persons and he succumbed to the injuries in the same assault. This assault took place near about Variety Square adjoining the Hindu Maha Sabha office at Khamgaon. Another person Kishor Ruparel was also assaulted. The brother of the deceased Ram Krishna lodged F. I. R. with the police in which he disclosed that the present petitioners 1 and 2 are intimately connected with the assault on the deceased Ramkrishna. The petitioners, therefore, say that they have genuine apprehension that they would be arrested in connection with this offence. It is also their say that false accusations are being made against them due to political rivallary. They are prepared to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. They have, therefore, applied for anticipatory bail.

(3.) NOTICE was issued to the Public Prosecutor who has filed a detailed reply. According to them the prosecution is not false. The offence has been registered and the investigation has been progressed and sufficient material has been collected to implicate both the petitioner. It is also their contention that the petitioners are absconding from Khamgaon since the date of the offence and the police have not been able to arrest them inspite of the best efforts even till today. According to the prosecution, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.