Cri. Apln. 1731/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1731 OF 2011 Shivaji s/o. Rangrao Deshmukh, R/o. Pusegaon, Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for respondents. r. S.V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for original complainant. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 7th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No. 26/11 registered in Basamba Police Station, District Hingoli. The crime is registered for offences punishable under sections 363, 364, 342, 120-B, 506, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Papers of investigation were made available for perusal. Both the sides are heard. 2. The report given by the complainant shows that the complainant had suspicion about the character of his wife and he had suspicion that Cri. Apln. 1731/11 2 his wife had kept illicit relations with one Dharu. As he did not like the conduct of his wife, on 19.3.2011 he reached his wife to her parents house. When complainant was at Hingoli, he received phone call and he was called at Gandhi Chowk, Hingoli. When he went to Gandhi Chowk, Hingoli, he noticed that the present applicant was present with his four wheeler vehicle. The complainant has made allegations that the applicant gave him lift and on the way Dharu boarded his vehicle. Complainant was taken to lonely place and Dharu attempted to commit his murder. The complainant escaped and then he was taken to the hospital. Report was given on 20.3.2011. The papers of investigation show that the complainant had sustained three injuries and one injury was on head which was bleeding injury. The medical certificate is consistent with the allegations made by the complainant. 3. The advocate of the applicant submitted that in the FIR there is mention that for most of the time of that day, the complainant was in the company of the present applicant and Dharu and they were moving casually and this circumstance shows that the applicant had no intention to commit the offence. He also submitted that there is no allegation that the present applicant took part in the assault. This circumstance cannot be considered at this stage as the present applicant had given lift to the complainant and he had allowed Dharu to board in the vehicle. The crime is registered for offence punishable under section Cri. Apln. 1731/11 3 307 of IPC and there are serious allegations made by the complainant against Dharu and he has mentioned that he has suspicion that Dharu has illicit relation with his wife. 4. In view of these circumstance, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and so the application stands rejected. 5. The advocate for applicant submitted that protection of one more week may be granted. In view of aforesaid circumstances, this request is also rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln1731.11