1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 847 OF 2010 Sayed Anwar s/o Sayed Munir ...Applicant VERSUS State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents ..... Shri M.S.Indani, advocate for the applicant Shri P.P.More, A.P.P. for the respondents. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 18th March, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri M.S.Indani, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri P.P.More, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 2 The applicant has preferred the present application seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No. 118 of 2009, registered at Gevrai police station for the offences punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 (25) of the Arms Act, on the complaint lodged by one Syed Jawed Syed Jamil. 2 3 The complaint lodged by the complainant on 15.5.2009 reflects that the incident occurred on 13.5.2009 and during the occurrence of the incident, the applicant was armed with deadly weapon i.e. Kukri and he inflicted it on the back of the victim i.e. complainant himself namely Syed Jawed Syed Jamil and accordingly assaulted him and thereby the victim fell down. 4 Learned counsel for the applicant urged that there is delay in lodging the first information report i.e. incident occurred on 13.5.2009; where as the complaint was lodged on 15.5.2009 and it is further urged that the victim sustained simple injury, and therefore, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. 5 Learned APP countered the said argument and submitted that victim himself has lodged the complaint, who sustained the injury by deadly weapon i.e. Kukri and said Kukri is yet to be recovered. It is also canvassed by learned APP that the incident was witnessed by four eye witnesses, namely Sk. Yunus Sk. Gulab, Sk. Subhan Sk. Osman, Syed Bashir Syed Jamir and Syed Naim Syed Jamir and investigation is under progress, and therefore, submitted that the present application deserves to be rejected. 3 6 On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that during the occurrence of the incident, the applicant was armed with Kukri and thereby assaulted the victim on his back, and hence, victim sustained bleeding injury and fell down and said Kukri is yet to be recovered. The aspect of delay in lodging the first information report can aptly be considered during the course of trial. Moreover, the investigation is under progress, and therefore, it is not desirable to allow the present application preferred by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. 7 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 847 of 2010 being sans merit stands dismissed. Interim protection, if any, stands vacated. 8 The above observations are prima facie and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/cr847.10