1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1808 OF 2010 Pradeep S/o.Nanasaheb Kadam APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1900 OF 2010 Chakradhar Gulabrao Paul APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Salunkhe, learned counsel for applicant in first application. Mr.S.J.Salunkhed, learned counsel for applicant in second application. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State in both applications. CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 23/06/2010 PER COURT : 1. Respective applicants have moved these applications for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.68/2010, registered in Sailu Police Station, of Dist. Parbhani. 2 2. It appears that these applications were moved during vacation on 11/05/2010, and interim protection was granted to these applicants. 3. Heard respective counsels for the parties and learned APP for State. As both these applications arises out of the same CR, it can be disposed of by way of common order. 4. Perusal of papers of investigation discloses that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Vilas Patil, who at the material time was working as Sectional Engineer at Nimna Dudhana Prakalp. As per the complaint, date of the incident is 23/04/2010 around 6.15 p.m. It is alleged that when the complainant was taking round after his duty hours and supervising the work of construction, at that time, these applicants alongwith one Shankar Late came at the sight. They took the dispute alongwith said Raosaheb as it is told to him that one Mr.Bhabale has called him, hence forcefully dragged the said Raosaheb in the vehicle and at that time, when these 3 persons were abusing the complainant in filthy language, the complainant was manhandled. The persons of the other contractor were present at sight, tried to rescue him. Then the present complainant lodged complaint against these applicants and one Shankar. 5. During the course of submissions, it is urged that the incident is occurred after the office hours. At the same time, it is to be noted 3 that even though the time of the incident was 6.15 p.m., after office hours, but the incident took place at work site. Even though it is urged that he was not performing his duty when he was at sight, these submissions can not be accepted. It is also urged on behalf of both the applicants that as the complainant was not manhandled by these 2 persons while he was performing his duties, but as the incident took place at the work site, when the applicant/public servant was supervising and giving instructions to the other labourers of the other contractors, it can not be said that section 353 of The IPC, will not attract to the present complaint. 6. It is also tried to urge that there are no criminal antecedents to the credit of applicant in Cri.Appl.No.1900/2010 and without any substance, it is observed by the learned Lower Court in this order that there are criminal antecedents to the credit of the applicant in Cri.Appl.No.1900/2010. Without any record, the application was rejected by the learned Lower Court. During the course of submissions across the bar, list of criminal antecedents to the credit of applicant in second application is placed on record, which shows that there are total 7 cases against the applicant in second application, and all these cases are under IPC. Out of these 7 cases, he was acquitted in the case registered vide CR No.136/2003 vide order dated 28/04/2004, but the remaining 6 cases are still pending. Whether there is substance or not, it is not a question require to be considered at this stage, but this record shows that there are criminal antecedents to the credit of applicant in cri.Appl.No. 4 1900/2010, which require to be considered while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. 7. So far as the name of Pradip is concerned, it is specifically mentioned in the complaint, that he was also present alongwith other applicants at site. In the premise, his involvement in the same offence is clear. So far as the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation are concerned, it can not be said that there is false implication of these applicants in the said CR. Hence no case is made out to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Both the applications sans any merit, hence rejected. Interim protection, earlier granted, is hereby stands vacated. 8. After the order is dictated, it is stated across the bar by the learned counsel for applicants that breathing time may be granted to these applicants to surrender before the learned J.M.F.C. Selu, Dist. Parbhani. In view of this statement, the protection earlier granted is continued for the period of 7 days only. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.1808-10