{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2048 OF 2010 Gangabhishan Gopalrao Pandhare Age-70 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Kothi, Tq-Ghansawangi, Dist-Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the applicant Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16 th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.77/2010 registered with Gondi police station, Dist-Jalna. 2. It appears that vide order dated 9th June 2010, interim protection is granted to the applicant. {2} 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP. Also perused the papers of investigation in connection with CR No.77/2010 so also in connection with CR No.76/2010, which is registered against the present complainant and his associates. 4. Admittedly, the alleged incident took place in the evening of 28th March 2010 in respect of which a complaint came to be lodged by the son of the applicant No.1, which is registered in the same police station at CR No.76/2010. This indicates that while the son of the applicant was cleaning gutter in front of his house, the present complainant, who is serving in police department, took out a quarrel with the son of the present applicant and during altercation, the complainant and his 10-12 supporters gathered at the spot and pelted stones on the complainant in CR N.76/2010. In respect of the same incident, later on complaint was lodged by the complainant on the basis of which CR No.77/2010 came to be registered. 5. Perusal of the allegations in the complaint at CR No. 77/2010 as well as statements of the witnesses recorded pursuant to that, indicate that no active role or participation is attributed to the present applicant. According to learned APP, as a senior citizen, when he was present at the spot, the applicant should have stopped the quarrel and his presence at the relevant time on the spot is sufficient to reject the bail application. In fact, it is alleged {3} that the applicant was only present at the spot of incident at the relevant time. In the premise, case is made out to exercise discretion vested in this Court to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 9th June 2010 is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2048-10