1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2010 Suresh S/o.Anantrao Peshkar, Age-41 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Sant Namdev Nagar, Beed, Ta. And Dist. Beed - 431122 APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Beed RESPONDENT Mr.G.K.Naik-Thigale, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 20/01/2010 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.80/2009, registered in Shivaji Nagar Police Station for the alleged offence u/s.420, 464 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. Considering the submissions across the bar and on perusal of papers of investigation two facts are clear, one is that the present applicant is not arrayed as an accused in the offence in which he is seeking relief of anticipatory bail i.e. CR NO.80/2009, registered in Shivaji Nagar Police Station of Dist. Beed, which fact is not under dispute. Secondly, the details which were submitted about the medical treatment provided to the wife of applicant, whose name is shown at Sr.No.15 Sunita Suresh Peshkar in the complaint lodged on which the CR is registered is already released by the Trial Court on bail. To show the bonafides of the applicant, applicant has deposited an amount in the sum of Rs.35,650/- in the Govt. Treasury and annexed the Treasury challan alongwith the application. On the face of it, as there is no name of the applicant appears in the FIR and to show his bonafides, as the entire amount which is reimbursed to him for the treatment provided to his wife, is already deposited, it is urged that in the similar situation the other applicants were released on bail. On the ground of parity, this applicant also to be released on bail. 4. During the course of submissions by learned APP across the bar, he has made it clear that about the alleged occurrence, no complaint is lodged by the Education Department of Zilla Parishad either against the present applicant or the others. But the complaint came to be registered on the complaint of medical practitioner whose employee has used his signatures, seals and letter heads. 3 5. In the premise, case is made out to exercise the discretion. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Interim protection granted to the applicant vide order dated 08/01/2010 is hereby confirmed. This protection to continue in case the applicant will be arrayed as an accused and the charge sheet is filed against the present applicant also. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri-appl-67-10