{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1899 OF 2010 1. Dhondiram s/o Eknathrao Kadam Age-41 years, Occ-Agri 2. Vitthal s/o Tukaram Kadam, Age-34 years, Occ-Agri 3. Dnyanoba s/o Tukaram Kadam Age-43 years, Occ-Agri 4. Mnujabhau s/o Tukaram Shendge Age-35 years, Occ-Agri All R/o Kothrul (Kothala) Tq-Majalgaon, Dist-Beed APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through police station, Sirsala Dist-Beed 2, The Superintendent of Police, Beed. RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the applicants Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22nd June 2010 {2} PER COURT: 1. By preferring the present criminal application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.33/2010 registered with Sirsala Police Station, Dist-Beed, for an offence punishable u/s 143, 336, 337, 295 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 (i) (x) of the Atrocities Act. 2. It appears that interim protection is already granted to the applicants by this Court on 11th May 2010. 3. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 4. Admittedly, the present offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Haribhau Kerba Chopade, in respect of an incident which has occurred on 23.04.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. It is alleged in the complaint that when a procession of Dr.Ambedkar Jayanti was proceeding towards Maruti temple, the present applicants, along with 15/20 others, pelted stones on the said procession and applicant No.1 also abused the members of the said procession in the name of their caste. It is further alleged that the applicants have created hurdle in the procession. It is not disputed that thereafter police escort was called on the request of {3} the members of the procession. It further appears that when the said procession reached near Maruti temple, some commotion took place between the members of the procession and the applicants and others. It also appears that the complainant has insisted for arrest of the applicants and others. As due to pelting of stones damage was caused to the vehicles of the police and of some private persons, a complaint was lodged by police constable Gore at CR No.34/2010. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, it is clear that CR No.33/2010 and CR No.34/2010 are registered in respect of same incident occurred on the same day and at the same time. However, in the complaint lodged by the police constable i.e. CR No.34/2010 the allegations made in the complaint which is registered at CR No.33/2010 are not reflected. If the police party was present at the spot at the time of the incident and does not whisper about the allegations made in the complaint CR No. 33/2010, then the same creates doubt about the veracity of the complainant in CR No.33/2010 and it appears that the complainant has exaggerated the incident. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail in exercise of the discretion vested in this Court. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted on 11.05.2010 is hereby confirmed and the same to remain in force till filing of the chargesheet. The applicants {4} are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and to attend the concerned police station on written intimation from the Investigating Officer concerned. Accordingly, the criminal application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1899-10