{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3938 OF 2009 Raibhan Namdeo Dalvi & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.D.Hon, Advocate for the applicants Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the applicant State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26 th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.81/2009 registered with Jafrabad police station for an offence punishable u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. {2} 3. Perusal of the compliant indicates that the offence is registered on the compliant of one Motheba Dalvi. The alleged incident occurred on 14th October 2009 at 8.00 a.m. in the shop of the complainant. It is alleged that the applicants along with three others came to the shop of the complainant and exchange of words took place and thereafter the complainant was assaulted with stick and iron rods. It is alleged that the applicants forcible entered into the shop of the complainant and robbed cash in the sum of Rs. 6,000/-. This incident is witnessed by 4 witnesses, whose statements are also recorded. 4. According to learned counsel for the applicant, this compliant is lodged due to political rivalry thereby falsely implicating the applicants. Per contra, learned APP has contended that there are eye witnesses, who has witnessed the said incident. 5. Powers vested in this Court u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code are to be exercised only in cases where there is false implication. Perusal of complainant as well as papers of investigation clearly demonstrate the role played by the applicants, which has also reflected in the statements of the eye witnesses. In the premise, it prima facie appears that there is no false implication of the applicants in the said offence. 6. Bare perusal of the facts in the compliant show that the complainant has alleged overtacts to the accused which can be {3} covered under other section of the IPC other than u/s 395, however, the same are not made applicable against the applicants for the reasons best known to the in charge officer of the said police station. At this stage the evidence cannot be scrutinized. However, it prima facie appears that the applicants are offenders in the said offence. In the premise, no case is made out to use discretion to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stand rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3938-09