1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.346 OF 2010 Vruddheshwar Bhagwan Kantale, Age-30 years, Occu-Agriculture and Business, R/o.Susare, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 22/02/2010 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.32/2009, registered in Pathardi Police Station for the alleged offence under The IPC and offences under The Atrocities Act. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. 3. In this application, interim protection was granted by this 2 Court to the applicant vide order dated 27/01/2010 that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with CR No.32/2009, applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 4. Considering the submissions across the bar that the CR No. 32/2009 was registered in Pathardi Police Station about the incident mentioned in para no.2 dated 31/10/2009, which occurred allegedly on 10.00 a.m. and the residential place of the complainant Mangal Kisan. It is alleged in the said paragraph that immediately after the incident took place, she approached to the concerned police station and lodged the complaint, but FIR of cognizable offence was not recorded by police, but the complaint was treated as NC and the number is also mentioned in the complaint as NC No.601/2009. Two facts require to be noticed that an offence in CR No.32/2009 was came to be registered on the complaint dated 17/12/2009 i.e. after about 47 days after the alleged incident took place, and as there is allegation that NC was recorded in the police station, directions were given to learned APP to produce the papers of said NC, which is today produced before the Court. On perusal of the particulars/details of the alleged offence in the NC, I did not find that in the details there is any reference about abuse on the part of accused to the complainant or her family members, hence the concerned police justified in not taking the cognizance of said incident under the Atrocities Act. 5. It is contended and urged before this Court that on 3 31/10/2009, at about 8.30 a.m., when the applicant was taking tea in the Tea Stall of one Baba Shinde, one Baliram Telore, relative of the complainant in CR No.32/2009 came there and asked the applicant as to why he has assaulted with wooden rod in his hand. The applicant was also threatened that in case any complaint is lodged in the police station, then, he will lodge the complaint under the Atrocities Act against him and others. Immediately, on 05/11/2009, the complaint came to be lodged at the hands of applicant against the said Baliram Telore. It is the contention that to give the counter blast to the complaint lodged by the applicant against the said Baliram Telore, this CR No.32/2009 is registered by her relative, which is a concocted complaint. 6. Learned APP opposed the bail application. 7. Considering these submissions across the bar and my observation in one of the paragraph supra, that the complaint immediately lodged about the incident dated 31/10/2009 at the hands of Mangal Kisan Telore do not disclose that, during the alleged incident, the complainant or her family members abused them, which will attribute an offence under the Atrocities Act. If it is so, a case is made out even though there is hurdle of section 18 of The Atrocities Act, not to grant anticipatory bail in relation with the offence under the Atrocities Act. In the premise, prima facie no offence is made out under the Atrocities Act. 4 8. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicant accused on anticipatory bail. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Interim protection granted on 27/01/2010, is hereby confirmed till filing of the charge sheet. 3. Applicant is at liberty to apply for regular bail after the charge sheet is filed. 4. Applicant to co-operate the investigation agency. 5. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.346-10