1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2561 OF 2010 Shivlal S/o.Hari Pawar, and another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.R.Dheple, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.K.S.Patil, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 16/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.19/2010, registered in Maujpuri Police Station, of Dist. Jalna for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 307, 504 r/w.34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered against these two applicants and one Madhukar Pandu Rathod on the complaint of one Baban Jadhav about the alleged incident took place on 06/03/2010, when the complainant was taking treatment in the General Ward. From the complaint as well as the other papers of investigation, it 2 appears that there was some dispute between the applicants and the complainant on account of agricultural land S.No.14, as according to the complainant, some loan was raised on this land by his father. After his financial condition was improved, the complainant approached to accused Madhukar, who is not before this Court, with the amount of loan and prayed to return his property. It is further alleged that on the day of incident at about 11.00 noon, when the complainant had been to his field for agricultural operations, these applicants and Madhukar Rathod came there. At that time, quarrel took place between the applicants, Madhukar and complainant. During that quarrel, the complainant was forced to lie on the ground and was forcibly administered the poisonous substance. At that time, the second applicant to this application was insisting the other two to administer the whole bottle of poison. From the spot, the complainant was admitted in the hospital, where he was treated. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, counsel for applicant has tried to urge that due to civil dispute over the agricultural land, these applicants are falsely implicated in the present case. It is also contended that the alleged incident took place on 06/03/2010, for which the complaint was lodged on 13/03/2010, which shows the falsity of the story created by the complainant against these applicants. It is also urged that the Madhukar is released on bail, hence on the ground of parity, these applicants are also entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. This Court is not in agreement with these submissions about the delay in lodging the FIR. The papers of investigation clearly shows that 3 the FIR was lodged while the complainant was under treatment in the general ward of the hospital. It further appears that on 06/03/2010 as well as on 07/03/2010, the statement of the complainant was recorded by the concerned Police Officer in question and answer form wherein it is clearly stated at the time of recording of that statement, in the evening of 06/03/2010, as well as on 07/03/2010, that the poisonous substance was administered to him by the applicant no.1 Shivlal and at that time applicant no.2 Mathura, wife of Madhukar was insisting Madhukar and Shivlal to administer the entire bottle to the complainant. If the dying declaration was recorded on 06/03/2010 and 07/03/2010, but on that basis, if the offence is not registered by the police, then the complainant will not be blamed for that purpose. It appears that after 3rd statement of the complainant was recorded, the said offence came to be registered. It is luck of these applicants that the complainant is alive despite administering poisonous substance to him. It is brought to the notice of this Court that one more offence was registered against the said Madhukar and others, in which Madhukar was released on bail by the order of Learned J.M.F.C., which indicates the criminal maintainability of these applicants and their associates. In substance, no case is made out to exercise the discretion of this Court. In view of this, as the application is sans merit, hence rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.2561-10