1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1396 OF 2010 Rajesh Ramrao Patil ..Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents ..... Mr.Swapnil Joshi, Advocate for applicant. Mrs.Vaishali Shinde, APP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.R.S. Shinde holding for Mr.D.B. Shinde, Advocate for original complainant. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE :30th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.Swapnil Joshi, learned counsel for applicant as well as Mrs.Vaishali Shinde, learned A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 assisted by Mr.R.S. Shinde, learned counsel holding for Mr.D.B. Shinde, learned counsel for original complainant. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in pursuance of C.R. No.I-33/2010 registered with Jawahar Nagar police station, Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that offence has been registered 2 on the complaint lodged by complainant Anand Radhesham Baheti on 19th March, 2010 alleging that on 13th March, 2010 at about 15.30 hours applicant arrived at his flat by car bearing No.MH 18-D-1195 from Deopur, Dhule and parked the said car infront of house of complainant and rang up bell of house of complainant and thereupon the complainant opened the door thereof and thereafter applicant Rajesh Patil and three other persons accompanying with him entered into house and applicant asked the complainant to return his amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was allegedly borrowed by complainant from him and thereupon the complainant stated to applicant that he has already returned the said amount to him. It is further alleged in the said complaint that applicant and three accompanying persons along with him abused the complainant and applicant gave slaps to the complainant and thereupon he shouted, and therefore, the watchman namely Kisan Dhondu Patil and complainant's wife Mrs. Santoshee Baheti arrived there and relieved complainant from the clutches of applicant and three accompanying persons and thereafter they left the said place by car. However, at the time of leaving the said place, they threatened the complainant. The complainant further stated that he would identify the said assailants, if shown. 4. On the aforesaid background learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant's wife namely Ratna R. Patil has already filed case against the 3 complainant bearing R.T.C. No.3122/2006 before learned Chief Judicial Magistre, Dhule under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and same is pending and complainant has filed the present complaint against applicant falsely as counter blast to the said case. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that applicant has been implicated in this case falsely by the complainant, and therefore, prayed that present application be allowed. 5. Learned A.P.P. as well as Mr.R.S. Shinde, learned counsel for original complainant opposed present application vehemently and submitted that statements of witnesses have been recorded during the course of investigation and statements of Ravindra Shinde, Lawyer, and Mr.Kisan Dhondu Patil, Watchman and wife of complainant namely Santoshee, who were eye witnesses to the said incident, connect applicant to alleged crime. It is further submitted that name of applicant has been disclosed in the complaint and specific role/overt act has been attributed to applicant and therefore, there is no question of false implication of applicant in the alleged crime. Hence, it is urged by learned A.P.P. that there is no substance in application and therefore, same is liable to be rejected. 6. On perusal of the papers of investigation and after considering the rival submissions advanced by 4 learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent from the contents of the compliant that name of applicant is reflected therein and specific role/overt act has been attributed to him during the course of occurrence of incident, and therefore, apparently, there is no possibility of false implication of applicant in the alleged crime. Moreover, on perusal of statements of witnesses namely Ravindra Shinde, a Lawyer, and Kisan Dhondu Patil, Watchman and Santoshee i.e. wife of the complainant, it appears that, they have raised finger against applicant as perpetrator to the crime, and apparently, connect applicant to the alleged crime. 7. In the circumstances, the investigation is under progress and same has not been completed so far and therefore, the custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary for further progress in investigation in proper perspective and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 8. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. Interim protection, if any, stands vacated. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri1396.10