{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2714 OF 2010 Pratap s/o Parashram Dhat APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. J.V.Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th July 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.233/2010 registered with Kopargaon police station, for an offence punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Interim protection is granted in favour of the applicant by this Court vide order dated 19th July 2010. 3. Today, when the application came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. {2} 4. This offence is registered in respect of an incident dated 16th June 2010 which has occurred at about 9.00 a.m. near a water reservoir. The complainant is the father of the present applicant. It is alleged that the complainant has partitioned his property in the name of his three sons by name, Venkar, Uttam and Pratap i.e. present applicant and they are cultivating the same separately. It is alleged in the complaint that on receiving information in respect of the incident the complainant had been to the spot and he was informed by his grand daughter, daughter of Venkat, that when they were proceeding near a bus stop, the applicant, and others came in a vehicle and assaulted them. It is alleged that accused Uttam assaulted Tushar with an axe and Venkat was also attacked. The complainant was informed that Venkat has taken his son Tushar for medical treatment at Shirdi. 5. The defence of the applicant is of alibi. It is contended that the applicant is doing a business of stationery at Pune. The applicant has asserted that he was at Pune at the relevant time. To support the contention that he was not present at the spot of incident at the relevant time, the applicant has produced various documents including a communication from Maharashtra State Cooperative Federation showing that the applicant was present there at 10.40 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. The applicant has also placed on record a document showing that he was also present at Central Building Pune and so also he has visited Bank of Baroda, Wadia Branch, Pune. Apart from it, the applicant has also sought a {3} Compact Disk from the Bank of Baroda of the CC TV footage, which was taken by the Bank on the date of incident and the applicant has asserted that he was present at the said bank. However, neither a report is submitted by the prosecution that these documents are fake nor they were examined. On the face of it, the documents demonstrate that the applicant was at Pune, which is situated at a distance of 260 k.m. away from the place of incident, at the relevant time. The complaint itself states that there is civil dispute over an agricultural land between applicant and father of deceased, Venkat. At this juncture, this Court, need not enter into the details of the said transaction. However, in the light of the documents which prima facie show presence of the applicant far away from the place of incident at the relevant time, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted in favour of the applicant is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant is directed to attend the concerned police station as and when required on written requisition from the IO concerned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2714-10