1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.921 OF 2010 Prakash S/o Rambhau Waghmare ..Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ..... Mr.Pravin Wagh, Advocate for applicant. Mr.P.P. More, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J. DATE : 22nd March, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.Pravin Wagh, learned Counsel for applicant as well as Mr.P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 7/2010, registered with Hasanabad Police Station, Dist.Jalna, for an offence punishable under Sections 392, 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, since he was arrested thereunder on 1st February, 2010. 2 3. At the outset, the applicant had preferred Criminal Misc. Application no.107/2010, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, but same was rejected by an order dated 11th February, 2010. Hence, present applicant has approached to this Court by way of present application for grant of regular bail, as aforesaid. 4. It appears that the complaint was registered on the report filed by one Bhagwan Thombre on 1st February, 2010, wherein it is alleged that on 31st January, 2010, he was returning to village after attending weekly Bazar at about 6.45 p.m. At that time, on the way, he had gone for answering the call of nature, and thereafter, was returning to reach village. At that time, the applicant herein and co- accused Deepak Rambhau Waghmare and Vithal Sarjerao Waghmare came across near Pandhari and demanded money from him for consuming liquor, but the complainant expressed his inability to give money, and thereupon, co-accused removed knife and pointed towards neck of the complainant and others assaulted him on his 3 stomach and snatched a bundle of 50 D. C. notes of Rs. 100 and escorted the said amount forcibly from him. The complainant shouted and sought help but applicant and other assailant fled away. 5. On the said background, learned counsel for the applicant makes submission that the present complaint is arising out of the complaint filed by applicant against complainant under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, as well as, under Section 143, 147, 149, 324 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. C.R. No.6/2010 and there is no substance in the present complaint. The learned counsel for applicant also submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and there is no necessity of any custodial interrogation. 6. The learned A.P.P. opposed present application and submitted that the name of the applicant herein has been figured in the F.I.R. and overt act committed by applicant in occurrence of the incident has been specified therein. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that the entire amount robbed is yet to be 4 recovered, except Rs.1100/-. According to learned A.P.P., the investigation is under progress and same is not completed and therefore, further custody of applicant is necessary for further investigation. 7. On perusal of the papers and after considering the rival contentions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, it is revealed from the record that applicant has filed C.R. No.6/2010 against the complainant under Prevention of Atrocities Act and it is submitted that the complainant was arrested therein and was enlarged on bail during the course of investigation, and therefore, it is apparent that the said matter is different and separate matter. As regards the present C.R., it is seen from F.I.R. that the name of the applicant herein has been reflected therein and a specific role has been attributed to the applicant in occurrence of incident. Moreover, except an amount of Rs.1100/-, remaining robbed amount out of Rs.5000/- is yet to be recovered. Moreover, during the course of investigation, it is seen that the statements of two eye witnesses have been recorded and apparently, the said statements involve applicant in the alleged 5 crime. Therefore, nature of offence is serious and considering the gravity thereof, I am of the view that further custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore, present application being sans merit stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri921.10