{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 720 OF 2010 1. Arvind s/o Jayram Patil Age-40 years, Occ-Service (Teacher) 2. Sanjay Jayram Patil Age-37 years, Occ-Agriculture 3. Yogesh Jayram Patil Age-30 years, Occ-Agriculture 4. Kamlesh Sahebrao Patil, Age-34 yeas, Occ-Agriculture All R/o Mukati, Tq & Dist-Dhule APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent of Police Dhule RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. H.F.Pawar, Advocate for applicants Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 23rd February 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.41/2010 registered with Dhule {2} Taluka Police station for an offence punishable u/s 307, 452, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. The said offence is registered in respect of an incident which occurred in the early hours i.e. 2.00 a.m. of 01.02.2010, in the residential premises of the complainant Nirmala Patil, It is alleged in the complaint that at the relevant time the applicants entered in the house of the complainant and scuffle took place and during the said scuffle the applicants poured kerosene on the person of the son Bhausaheb from the can, which was found lying in the house of the complainant. It is alleged that the household articles were also thrown. It is further alleged that the complainant thereafter lodged a compliant. The complainant has alleged that though she cried for help none turned out to help or rescue them. 4. It is contended by the applicants that two offences are registered against the sons of the complainant on 28th and 31st January i.e. CR No.31/2010 and 40/2010 respectively. The said offences are lodged as the sons of the complainants have teased the women folk from the applicants' family and hence there was enmity between the two families. The complainant had threatened the applicants that they have lodged complaint against her sons and hence she would implicate them in a false case. {3} 5. While opposing the bail application learned APP has contended that there are criminal antecedents to the credit of the applicant No.4. However, learned APP is unable to satisfy the Court in respect of previous offences registered against the sons of the complainant. In the premise, it prima facie appears that the applicants are falsely implicated in this offence, as the same can be gathered from the fact that the applicants had entered the house of the complainant without any preparation or intention. Had the applicants wanted to set the son of the complainant on fire, they would have lighted him with a match stick, however they did not do so. The complaint smells of false implication, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants. In the premise, case is made out to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with CR No.41/2010 registered with Dhule Taluka Police station, they be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln720-10