1 CR.APLN NO.144/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901. APPLN/144/2011 SAMBHAJI SHANKRBUA BHARTI [Criminal] AND ORS V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.P.Katneshwarkar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 27.1.2011 1. Heard. By virtue of FIR dt. 14.12.2010, the complainant informed the Police of the incident dt.9.12.2010 wherein he conveyed, the accused/applicant barged in his house, abused him, dragged him. Sambhaji questioned him as to why Kalidas had evil eyes on niece, the complainant was abused, Sambhaji assaulted with the stick, Raju and Bandu also held sticks and assaulted it on right leg and even on back. 2. Complainant Ganesh was medically examined. The medical certificate informs, there was a fracture below right knee, the nature of injury was grievous, it was fracture of tibia fibula associated with displacement. There was contusion with right arm and 2 CR.APLN NO.144/2011 abrasion on left temporal region. 3. Counsel submits there is delay for the incident dt.9.12.2010, to record on 14.12.2010. Therefore, it smacks of illegality. 4. The delay in every case is not fatal. The delay is tried to be explained in FIR (page no.13). The injured complainant, his family members were more concerned with the progress and help of the complainant rather than approaching Police to prosecute the accused/applicant. At this stage, it cannot be said that the complaint is afterthought. Release of one of the accused on bail will not be a signal to release the accused in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The parameters for both the provisions are on different pedestal. In the result, application lacks merit, dismissed. Earlier protection vacated. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/144-11crapl