1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2300 OF 2009 Baban S/o Rambhau Pujari and another Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. *** Mr. N. K. Kakade, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. M. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent / State. *** 1. Heard learned counsel extensively. 2. The counsel informs, at the material time on the date of alleged incident dated 28th May, 2009 in the afternoon, the applicants were not in the village Punewadi but they were at Bhoisar which is around 275 Kms. away and entire family is falsely book on vendetta to have a ruse of personal feelings. The counsel minutely took me to the delay of 27 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and the victims taking treatment at the private hospital at Ahmednagar instead of getting themselves referred, examined at Parner which is at a distance of 4 Kms. The counsel further submits custodial interrogation of the accused applicant is not desired as nothing to be recovered. 3. Learned A.P.P. pointed and rightly that the production of letter from Railway Authorities at this stage as to its authenticity cannot be blankly accepted. 4. The three eye-witnesses who are injured, have pointed specific role to the accused/ applicant. The F.I.R. implicates the Applicants. The sword used in commission of the offence is to be recovered. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 5. Without adverting to the plea of alibi raised, at this point of time seeking pre-arrest bail, which plea is available at trial, however, the F.I.R. of the complainant, coupled with the statement of the injured, implicates the accused/ applicant as to the specific roles. Custodial interrogation will facilitate for recovery of alleged deadly weapons. The victims would heave a sigh of relief. 6. The reliance to the judgment of this Court reported in 1981 Cri. L. J. 1808 in the matter of "Jagannath V/s State of Maharashtra" will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Application rejected. 8. The interim protection extended by order dated 15th July, 2009 flowing from order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29th July, 2009 is further extended till 12th August, 2009. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:31/07/2009. ans/2300