1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2010 Tushar S/o.Ganesh Sadaphal, Age-22 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Rahata, Tal.Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Incharge, Police Station, Shirdi, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENT Mr.V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 18/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.116/2008, registered in Shirdi Police Station for the alleged offence u/s. 394 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. Papers of 2 investigation revealed that on the allegation of one Sham Rambhau Bodkhe, about the alleged incident took place in the night of 01/09/2008, said complaint came to be lodged wherein it is alleged that on the point of country made revolver, this applicant removed cash in the sum of Rs.10,000/- from the pocket of complainant and the golden chain weighing half tola was also snatched by the present applicant. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is brought to my notice that the applicant has earlier moved an application for anticipatory bail on 05/09/2008 and his application was rejected on 29/09/2009. During this period, when the applicant was on anticipatory bail and had co-operated the investigation, no evidence is collected against him. There is also delay in lodging FIR. 4. Learned APP opposed the bail application in routine course. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, it is very surprise to note that during the period of one year, the application of the applicant was not decided and kept as it is. No progress in the investigation during this period of about 1 year. Apart from it, the statement of the alleged eye witnesses recorded during the investigation. Perusal of these statements shows that the date which is mentioned in the statement that the statements were recorded on 02/09/2008 which appeared to be altered at number of places from 02/09/2008 to 03/09/2008 which creates some doubt about the 3 investigation carried out. In the premise, when in the natural course, this is not a case of anticipatory bail, but because of these circumstances, case is made out to use the discretion. In the premise, following is the order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.116/2008 and released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. This protection is granted for the period of 4 weeks. Within meantime, if advised, applicant may apply for regular bail. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.65-10