(1) CRI.APP. 3849.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3849 OF 2010 1. Madhav S/o Gynaba Kuldipke, Age : 65 years, Occu.: Labourer, R/o Digdi (Dhanora), Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded 2. Ravi S/o Madhav Kuldipke, Age : 27 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o as above 3. Rahul S/o Madhav Kuldipke, Age : 23 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o as above .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Mahur (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader of High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent ... Mr. P.B. Rakhunde, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. P.P. More,, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) CRI.APP. 3849.2010 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned APP. 3. Though the applicants apprehend arrest in connection with crime no. 54 of 2010 registered at Mahur Police Station for offence punishable under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, it is pertinent to notice that the allegations in the FIR clearly indicates that the complainant was not willing to get himself medically examined and the allegations of taking away a gold chain and Rs. 1200/- from him is apparently added in order to aggravate the nature of offence. What appears from the record is that FIR was lodged by the applicants regarding offence under the penal provisions of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against brother of the complainant-Shivram. The FIR itself shows that such complaint was already lodged against brother and the informant i.e. Maroti Shivram Ingle. No corroboration appears to be ensured to verify whether the complainant was really injured during the course of assault. It is probable, therefore, that the complainant was (3) CRI.APP. 3849.2010 aggrieved due to the registration of offence against his brother and lodged the FIR with a view to retalliate the action taken by the applicants. In any case, the FIR itself shows that the complainant was not ready to get himself medically examined, there is hardly any corroboration to the prosecution case regarding the alleged offence of road robbery. 4. Taking overall view of the matter, I find that the arrest of the applicants is likely to humiliate them without much foundation to the allegations made against them. Hence, they are entitled to seek anticipatory bail. Their Application is granted as below:- (I) In the event of arrest, the applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each before the arresting Officer and further condition that they shall attend the concerned Police Station each Sunday between 10.00 am. to 2.00 pm. for four consecutive Sundays or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier and (4) CRI.APP. 3849.2010 that they shall actively co-operate with the Investigation Officer and if anything is recovered during such period, the recovery may be deemed as one under section 27 of the Evidence Act. 5. Application disposed of. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp