1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3911 OF 2009 1. Bismillabee W/o. Shaikh Haneef, Age-70 years, Occu-NIL, R/o.Adagaon Ranjebuwa, Tal.Basmat, Dist. Hingoli, 2. Taherabee W/o.Yusuf, Age-25 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Adagaon Ranjebuwa, Tal.Basmat, Dist. Hingoli, 3. Saherabee D/o.Shaikh Noor, Age-26 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Station Road, Basmath, Tal.Basmat, Dist. Hingoli APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Hatta, Tal.Basmath, Disttrict - Hingoli RESPONDENT Mr.V.S.Undre h/f. Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for applicants Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 03/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, these applicants have approached 2 this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in case of their arrest in connection with CR No.111/2009, registered in Hatta Police Station for an alleged offence u/s. 307, 452, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard advocate for applicant followed by the submissions of learned counsel appearing for State. On earlier occasion when the application was moved before this Court on 26/11/2009, already interim protection is given to applicant no.1 that in case of her arrest in connection with this offence, she be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount, which protection was to remain in effect till 01/12/2009. 3. Today heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP. The offence appears to be registered on the basis of complaint of one Mumtazbee W/o.Shaikh Jabbi on 23/09/2009 in Hatta Police Station. Perusal of the complaint discloses no role played by applicant no.1 and applicant no.3. The allegations against applicant no.2 that when she entered in the premises of the complainant, she was having a stick in her hand, but during the alleged incident she gave kick blow to the complainant. This allegations also appears to be vague. It is urged across the bar that applicant no.2 has delivered a child on 01/09/2009 and this alleged incident occurred on 22/09/2009. In the premise, considering the scenario as projected in the complaint, 3 no offence made out as alleged against them, hence they be released in case of their arrest. 4. The application is opposed by learned APP appearing for State on the ground that the medical certificates are yet to be collected by the Investigation Officer and the investigation is in progress. 5. Considering these submissions across the bar, the facts are clear that if the injured are medically examined on 22/09/2009 and we are now in the beginning of first week of December, and if during this period, Investigation Officer is unable to collect the medical certificate about the treatment provided to the injured allegedly sustained injuries during the occurrence of the incident took place in the 3rd week of September 2009, then this is not excusable. The allegations made in the complaint against these applicants find no specific allegation about the role played by applicant no.1 and 3, so far as role played by the 2nd applicant also is vague in nature. In the premise, considering that these applicants are ladies, case is made out to exercise the discretion u/s. 438 of The Cr.P.C. Hence order - O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. The protection granted to applicant no.1 is confirmed. 3. In case of arrest of applicant no.2 and 3 in connection with CR No.111/2009, registered in Hatta Police Station, they also be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 4 4. The protection granted to applicant no.1 as well as applicant no.2 and 3 to remain in force for the period of 4 weeks. Within meantime, they may apply for regular bail. 5. Application stands disposed of in terms of above order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.3911-09