1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.924 OF 2010 Deepak Rambhau Waghmare and another ..Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ..... Mr.Pravin Wagh, Advocate for applicants. Mr.P.P. More, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J DATE : 22nd March, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.Pravin Wagh, learned Counsel for applicants as well as Mr.P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicants seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.7/2010, registered with Hasanabad Police Station, Dist.Jalna, for an offence punishable under Sections 392, 323 r/w 34 of the 2 Indian Penal Code. 3. At the outset, the applicants had preferred Criminal Misc. Application no.108/2010, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, but same was rejected by an order dated 11th February, 2010. Hence, present applicants have approached to this Court by way of present application for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest, as aforesaid. 4. It appears that the complaint was registered on the report filed by one Bhagwan Thombre on 1st February, 2010, wherein it is alleged that on 31st January, 2010, he was returning to village after attending weekly Bazar at about 6.45 p.m. At that time, on the way, he had gone for answering the call of nature, and thereafter, was returning to reach village. At that time, the applicants herein and co- accused Prakash S/o Rambhau Waghmare came across near Pandhari and demanded money from him for consuming liquor, but the complainant expressed his inability to give money, and thereupon, co-accused removed knife 3 and pointed towards neck of the complainant and others, assaulted him on his stomach and snatched a bundle of 50 G.C. notes of Rs.100/- and robbed the said amount forcibly from him. The complainant shouted and sought help, but applicants and other assailant fled away. 5. On the said background, learned counsel for the applicants makes submission that the present complaint is arising out of the complaint filed by applicants against complainant under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, as well as, under Section 143, 147, 149, 324 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. C.R. No.6/2010 and there is no substance in the present complaint. The learned counsel for applicants also submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and there is no necessity of any custodial interrogation. 6. The learned A.P.P. opposed present application and submitted that the name of the applicants herein have been figured in the F.I.R. and overt act committed by applicants in occurrence of the incident has been 4 specified therein. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that the entire amount robbed is yet to be recovered, except Rs.1100/-. According to learned A.P.P., the investigation is under progress and same is not completed and therefore, custody of applicants is necessary for further investigation. 7. On perusal of the papers and after considering the rival contentions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, it is a matter of record that applicants have filed C.R. No.6/2010 against the complainant under Prevention of Atrocities Act and it is submitted that the complainant was arrested therein and was enlarged on bail during the course of investigation, and therefore, it is apparent that the said matter is different and separate. As regards the present C.R., it is seen from F.I.R. that the names of the applicants herein have been reflected therein and a specific role has been attributed to the applicants in occurrence of incident. Moreover, except an amount of Rs.1100/-, remaining robbed amount out of Rs.5000/- is yet to be recovered. Moreover, during the course of investigation, it is seen that the statement of two 5 eye witnesses have been recorded, and apparently, the said statements involve applicants in the alleged crime. Therefore, nature of offence is serious and considering gravity thereof, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore, present application being sans merit stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri924.10