{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3905 OF 2010 Vitthal Ashruba Dongare APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Anand Chaware, Advocate for the applicant Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22nd October 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.281/2010 registered with Pathardi police station, Dist-Ahmednagar. 2. It appears that interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant by this Court, vide order dated 7th October 2010. 3. Today, when the application came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Also perused the papers of investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that counter complaints have been lodged by the parties against each {2} other about the incident dated 16.06.2010. Reference is also given to one complaint lodged at Crime No.271/2010 against the complainant. It is also contended that thus there is previous rivalry between the parties and hence, the present complaint has been lodged falsely. It is further urged that there is reference of use of axe in the complaint, however the medical certificate does not indicate that any injury is sustained by the complainant by means of an axe. It is the next submission that on the day of the incident one Non Cognizable offence was registered against the present complainant about the incident which has occurred at Shirur at about 9.00 a.m. As against this the offence is alleged to have been committed at about 10 to 11.00 a.m. on Muguswadi-Kharwandi road. About the same incident complaint is lodged at 7.20 p.m. According to the applicant, the applicant is the husband of the sister of the complainant to whom the applicant has divorced, which is one of the reasons for which he is falsely implicated in the present offence. 5. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant it is clear that there is previous dispute between the parties and they are relatives of each other and, therefore, there cannot be a mistaken identity of the culprits and the role alleged against them. 6. It is alleged in the complaint that when the complainant was riding on a motorcycle, the applicant and four {3} others intercepted the said motorcycle near Muguswadi-Kharwandi road and assaulted the complainant. During the said assault the applicant assaulted the complainant with an axe on his leg and shin. It appears that this FIR is registered while the complainant was taking treatment as indoor patient at Ahmednagar. During the course of the investigation statements of 4/5 witnesses, who had tried to intervene in the said assault, have been recorded. The medical examination of the complainant shows that 4 injuries were noticed on his vital organs, which are caused due to hard and blunt objects and for further orthopedic opinion the complainant was referred to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. This itself indicates as to how the complainant reached at civil hospital Ahmednagar from Pathardi. This is a proper and probable explanation as to why there is delay in lodging the FIR. Considering the fact that the complainant and the applicant are acquainted with each other there must not be any mistaken identity of the applicant and the role alleged against him. It is to be noted that the previous rivalry is a double edged weapon and it is to be construed that due to said previous rivalry there was assault on the complainant. In the premise, no case is made out to enlarge the applicant in exercise of discretionary powers. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. The interim protection granted in favour of the applicant stands vacated. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3905-10