{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2045 OF 2010 1. Rajendra Mahadeo Chaudhar Age-35 years, Occ-Agri 2. Sheshrao Sukhdeo Chaudhar Age-33 years, Occ-Agri 3. Gorakh Sonyabapu Chaudhar Age-48 years, Occ-Agri 4. Sukhdeo Sonyabapu Chaudhar Age-60 years, Occ-Agri 5. Parvatibai Mahaeo Chaudhar Age-62 years, Occ-Household All R/o Nipani Jalgaon, Tq-Pathardi, Dist-Ahmednagar APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th June 2010 PER COURT: {2} 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.MI-97/2010 registered with Pathardi police station, Dist-Ahmednagar, for an offence punishable u/s 143 to 149, 323, 326, 447, 504, 506 (2) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that interim protection has been granted to the applicants vide order dated 9th June 2010. 3. Today, when the matter came up on board for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 4. During the course of submissions, certain facts are brought on record by the learned counsel for the applicant, which play vital role in deciding the present criminal application. This offence is a result of a private complaint filed by Revanath Ghule before JMFC, Pathardi in which an order of investigation came to be passed u/s 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Pursuant to the said order the offence at CR No. MI-97/2010 came to be registered, in respect of an incident which has taken place on 28th November 2009. It is alleged in the complaint that the present applicants had entered in the agricultural field of the complainant and assaulted him, his brother and his relatives on the count of {3} damage caused to the standing crop of the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that due to terror of the applicants, the complainant could not enter and reside in village Nipani Jalgaon and hence he is residing at the place of his maternal uncle and therefore, the delay is caused in filing the complaint. My attention is also drawn to the alleged incident dated 28th November 2009 for which complaint was lodged by present applicant No.1, against complainant Revanath and 4 others. On the basis of said complaint, offence came to be registered u/s 307, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In this connection, other brothers of the complainant moved an application for anticipatory bail bearing No.4565/2009 before this Court, which was rejected vide order dated 19.01.2010. An application was also preferred by present complainant Revanath, after his arrest on 29th November 2009, i.e. criminal application No.185/2010, which was allowed on 9th February 2010. This indicates that during the period 29th November 2009 to 9th February 2010, the complainant, Revanath, was behind bars and while he was ordered to be released on bail, a condition was imposed that he should not enter village Nipani Jalgaon till the commencement of the trial. This fact indicates that during this period, the complainant Revanath was not residing in village Nipani Jalgaon due to the terror of the applicants, however due to the prohibitory orders passed by this Court. 5. Thus, the contentions, which are raised by the complainant in the private complaint, required to be considered in {4} view of the report submitted by the Pathardi police station. It appears that the police have treated the report as Non Cognizable offence and numbered as NC No.636/2009. On perusal of the said report it does not found any particulars about role played by the applicants or their relatives or anybody at their instance. Reference is also found of the NC complaint in the private complaint. 6. It appears that in respect of the incident of 28th November 2009, initially report was lodged with the police, however was treated as NC offence and after a gap of 4 months private complaint has been lodged and due to that the said offence is registered with the police. In the premise, due to suppression of material facts and delay in lodging the complaint, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted to the applicants on 9th June 2010, is hereby confirmed and the same to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2045-10