1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1617 OF 2010 Pralhad s/o Baburao Mapari and others ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra . ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri J.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicants Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 4th May, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. J.V. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. K.S. Patil learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant Nos.1 to 3, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under C.R. No.I-27/2010, registered at Paithan Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by Ramlal Asaram Galdhar on 21.3.2010 in respect of the occurrence of the incident on 13.3.2010. It is alleged in the said complaint that on 13.3.2010, at about 6.00/ 6.30 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding towards his home, in the village, the applicant No.3 Ram @ Guddu s/o Pralhad Mapari and applicant No.2 Anil s/o Pralhad Mapari caught hold of him near the heap of sand of Raju Niware and made him flat on the the sand and the applicant No.1 Pralhad s/o Baburao Mapari opened a plastic bottle containing some poisonous substance therein and sat on the chest of the complainant and administered the contents of the said poisonous substance from the said bottle to the complainant forcibly and thereafter went away and thereby the complainant became unconscious. The said complaint also recites that, he was admitted into High Tech Hospital, Aurangabad and after regaining consciousness and discharge, he filed the complaint. 4. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, although the incident occurred on 13.3.2010, the complaint came to be lodged after the delay of about 8 days i.e. on 21.3.2010 and the said delay itself leads to concoction and fabrication against the applicant herein and, therefore, it is submitted that names of applicant Nos.1 to 3 have 3 been falsely implicated in the present offence. It is also canvassed that interim protection was granted to the applicant by learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad and the applicants attended the concerned police station and cooperated in the investigation and, therefore, there is no question of misuse of liberty if the present application is allowed and, therefore, requested that present application deserves to be allowed. 5. While opposing the present application, learned A.P.P. countered the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the incident occurred on 13.3.2010 and immediately on 14.3.2010, attempt was made to record the statement of complainant, but he was unconscious and, therefore, the said statement could not be recorded. It is also submitted that the complainant regained the consciousness on 17.3.2010 and, therefore, his statement was recorded immediately on the said date, which involves the applicants in the alleged crime. It is also submitted that, the aspect of alleged delay can be considered at the time of trial after appreciating the evidence and not at this stage. It is canvassed by learned A.P.P. that the names of applicants have been reflected in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to them therein and, therefore, there is no false implication of the applicants in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to recover the 4 above referred bottle, by which poisonous substance was administered to the complainant. 6. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, at the outset, it is apparent that, the names of applicant Nos.1 to 3 have been reflected in the contents of complaint and specific role/ overt act has been attributed to each of them in the occurrence of the incident and, therefore, apparently, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicants in the alleged crime. Moreover, the aspect of alleged delay in lodging the F.I.R. can be considered at the time of trial after appreciating the evidence and same cannot be considered at this stage of bail and apparently, the learned A.P.P. has given the explanation therefor as aforesaid. 7. Besides that, the aforesaid bottle by which the poisonous substance was allegedly administered to the complainant forcibly is yet to be recovered and the investigation is still under progress and same has not been completed. In the circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicant Nos.1 to 3 is necessary for the further progress in the investigation in proper perspective and, therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 5 8. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. 9. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri161710