1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2010 Sayyed Abdul Rahim S/o.Sayyed Abdul APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Mr.S.M.Godsay, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 22/01/2010 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.130/2009, registered in Beed City Police Station for the alleged offence u/s. 22, 224, 225 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Undisputedly, it can not be denied that the present applicant was the Incharge of the Ward, in whose custody, the prisoners were taking the medical treatment in the Civil Hospital. During the duty 2 hours of the present applicant, who is Incharge of the Ward, one of the accused who was taking treatment in the hospital, escaped or ran away from the custody of the ward, in whose charge, the medical ward was. It is tried to urge across the bar that as the call was received from the spouse of the present applicant, he was away from the duty and during that period, the accused taking medical treatment ray away from the hospital. It amounts to negligence in duty and if the accused taking the treatment in the hospital, ran away, who was in the custody of the ward of which the present applicant is Incharge, it can not be said that there is false implication of the present applicant in the prison. Mere available for the interrogation is no ground to allow the anticipatory bail application. Application sans any merit. Hence rejected. 4. The interim protection granted is extended for the period of 2 days as the counsel under take that the applicant will surrender before the concerned police station. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.21-10