1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4093 OF 2009 Baban S/o.Madhavrao Magre APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.V.A.Bagal-Patil, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent/State WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3761 OF 2009 Parashuram S/o.Narayan Yadav APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.V.D.Salunkhe, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent/State WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3766 OF 2009 Vijay Kalyanrao Gavhane and another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.V.D.Sapkal h/f. Mr.M.P.Kale, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent/State 2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 23/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. Criminal Application no. 4093/2009 and 3761/2009 arises in relation with FIR No.177/2009 in which the applicant in application no.3766/2009 is the complainant while the Criminal Application No. 3766/2009 is in connection with CR No.178/2009 in which the applicant in Application No.3761/2009 is the complainant. By these applications, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in case of their arrest in connection with CR No. 177/2009 and in connection with CR No.178/2009. These offences were registered for an offence u/s. 394 of The IPC. 2. As the notices of these applications were served on the prosecution, the learned APP placed in my hand the papers of investigation till carried out. Before considering the submissions across the bar, it can be seen from the facts which were disclosed in both these complaints that the incident occurred in the afternoon of 16/10/2009 and as per the allegations made in both these complaints, both these complainants have been to the office of the Jalna Panchayat Samiti to submit their tenders for the preparation of road under the scheme of Prime Minister Village Road Scheme. The allegations in the first complaint are as when the complainant was approaching to the office of Panchayat Samiti to submit the tenders, the applicant in Application no.3761/2009 stopped the vehicle after 3 the complainant in second complaint alighted from the vehicle. The applicants in the first two applications alongwith their associates inquired with them as to why they are submitting their tenders. Alteration of words took place and in that process, chilly powder was thrown in the eyes of the complainant and after they were assaulted, the bracelet in the hand of the complainant and the cash in the sum of Rs.49,000/- was forcibly removed. It is the allegation in the second complaint that when the applicant in application no. 3761/2009 was in the office of Panchayat Samiti, and while he was having 3 tenders found in his hands, the applicants in the third application and their associates caught hold him and removed cash in the sum of Rs.50,000/- from his bag. According to both the complainants, the incident occurred was witnessed by the driver of their vehicles, and the persons who were present at the spot. 3. It is the submission across the bar by learned counsel appearing for these applicants who are arrayed as an accused in the respective complaints that due to business rivalry, these false complaints were lodged against each other, as well as they are entitled for anticipatory bail. 4. These applications are vehemently opposed by the learned APP appearing for the State on the ground that from the complaints as well as the submissions across the bar, it can not be disputed that the incident was not occurred, but the only question whether it was occurred in the manner which was projected and demonstrated 4 during the course of submissions. Papers of investigation till carried out which were placed in my hands show that the witnesses who have witnessed the incident have supported the disclosure of facts in both the complaints. Considering the allegations in the complaint as well as the submissions of the witnesses, it can not be said that these applicants are falsely implicated in respective complaints alleged against them and if it is so and as the investigation is in progress, it is necessary that none of the applicants can be enlarged on anticipatory bail under the discretionary powers of this Court and considering the alleged business rivalry and the investigation is in progress, their custodial interrogation is necessary. In the premise, all the applications deserve the only following order. All the three applications for anticipatory bail are hereby rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.4093-09