{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2468 OF 2010 Vithal Limbaji Kamble and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.G.Dargad, Advocate for the applicants Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 12th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.70/2010 registered with Kalamnuri police station of Dist-Hingoli, for an offence punishable u/s 436, 435, 323, 504, 406, 447 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by {2} the submissions of learned APP. Perused the complaint and other papers of the investigation. 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Vijay Sugandhe. It is alleged that the complainant is working as a yearly labour on the field of Taher Mohammad and Peer Mohammad situated at Masoda Shivar. It is further alleged that on 06.01.2010, the present applicants and two others had approached him and questioned him as to why he is working on the field of said Taher and Peer Mohammed and asked him to leave his job, to which he declined. Therefore, it is alleged, in the night he was assaulted by all the applicants and thereafter the tin shed wherein he was residing was set on fire and all the utensils and food grains stored in the tin shed, were gutted in the fire. It is alleged that the said fire was lit by applicant No.1 4. It is urged by drawing my attention to the entries in the revenue record that the revenue record no where shows that the land is under the control of Taher Mohammed and Peer Mohammed and hence the allegations against the applicant are {3} concocted and there is false implication of the applicants. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned APP and on perusal of the papers of investigation, it is clear that after the compliant is lodged, immediately the police party had visited the spot where the remnant of burnt articles in ashes were noticed which were pointed out by the complainant and his brother. If it is so coupled with the fact that the complainant is acquainted with the applicants, it cannot be said that the applicants are falsely implicated in the present offence. In the premise, no case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. In the result, the application, which is devoid of any merit, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2468-10