1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1807 of 2010 Shahid Jamshed Sharif and one another ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Tahsil, Nagpur Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. A.S.Parihar, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 08 th Decem ber , 2010 . Heard. By the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are seeking for pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 126/2010 registered with Police Station, Tahsil, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Mr. Mardikar, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the report dated 02/8/2010 is an outcome of previous enmity between the applicants and the complainant. He further submitted that the applicant had lodged a report on 09/7/2010 against the complainant alleging that the complainant with his associate committed theft of two vehicles. The complainant, who was having grudge in his mind due to complaint lodged by the present applicants, with a revengeful attitude, lodged the report dated 02/8/2010 against the applicants. According to learned Advocate, there is no other material apart from the vague allegations against the applicants and as such, the applicants deserve protection at the hands of this Court in connection with said crime. 2 Per contra, Mr. Parihar, learned APP for the State has filed the reply and strongly opposed the application. The material collected by the investigating agency is placed before me for perusal. Perusal of the record reveals that the statement of the victim, which was recorded immediately, shows presence of the applicants as well as the act attributed to them. It is not in dispute that in the report lodged against the applicants, the complainant has also referred to the report dated 09/7/2010, lodged against him by the applicants. Learned APP has invited my attention to the order dated 06/9/2010, passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 1339/2010 (Shahid Jamshed Shariff and another ..vs.. State of Mah.). In this application, initially this court had granted ad-interim protection to the applicants. Subsequently, while considering the application finally, this Court had considered the material against the applicants and observed that for the smooth sailing of investigation and as huge amount alleged to be stolen is yet to be recovered, the interim protection granted to the applicants was revoked and the application was rejected. Learned APP further submitted that there is no change in the material and investigating agency is at the initial stage. There is not only the statement of the victim, but there are other witnesses, whose statements are recorded and they reveal that the applicants were present on the spot and assaulted the victim. The medical evidence also support to the injuries caused to the victim. Learned APP has raised grievance that during the period of interim protection, inspite of asking by the investigating agency to the applicants to attend the police station through intimation letter, the applicants failed to attend and as such apprehension is expressed by the investigating agency that the applicants may not cooperate in the investigation, once they are protected. 3 In view of the material placed before me, I am of the opinion that there is strong material against the applicants. This court has also an occasion to consider the application on merits. The apprehension expressed by the investigating agency is justified. It is not in dispute that there is enmity between the parties. The investigation is yet to proceed further on the aspect of alleged theft of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. In view of these facts, in my considered opinion, this is not a fit case for grant of protection to the applicants. At this stage, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that in view of the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court in some matters, the applicants were directed to surrender before the police authorities for a specific period and in this backdrop, he made a request that such course may be adopted in case of the present applicants. However, in view of the strong material against the applicants and their attitude of non-cooperation to the investigating agency as submitted by learned APP, I am not inclined to accept the request of learned Advocate for the applicants. In the result, criminal application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale