{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1942 OF 2010 1. Aba @ Avinash s/o Prabhakar Khandare Age-35 years, Occ-Agri 2. Viju s/o Prabhakar Khandare Age-30 years, Occ-Agri 3. Balu @ Depak s/o Prabhakar Khandare Age-32 years, Occ-Agri All R/o Belwandi Phata, Wadegavan Tq-Parner, Dist-Ahmednagar APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs. M.B.Thube-Mhase, Advocate for the applicants Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 14th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this criminal application, the applicants have {2} prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.44/2010 registered with Parner police station for an offence punishable u/s 143 to 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, of the IPC, section 2 and 25 of the Arms Act and section 37 (1) (3) r/w 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. It appears that interim protection is granted to the applicants vide order dated 18th May 2010. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of the investigation. 4. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Manisha Sachin Shelke, wife of Sachin Shelke, accused in the complaint at CR No.43/2010 lodged by present applicant No.1, which is first in time. It is alleged in the complaint at CR No.44/2010 that on 11th March 2010, the applicants had been to the house of the complainant in search of one Nitin and when they did not trace him, they man handled the father in law of the complainant and threatened to kill him, if they did not trace said Nitin. Admittedly, though the said incident is alleged to have occurred at 11.30 , yet, the same is reported to the police at 5.40 p.m. 5. Per contra, in the complaint lodged by the present {3} applicant No.1, against in all 13 persons including husband of complainant Manisha, the first applicant has alleged that he has advanced Rs.4000/- to accused No.1 and 2 for performing agricultural operations, however, the accused did not perform the said operations. It is further alleged that when applicant No.1 approached the said accused, the accused, with the help of said Nitin and his associates, who are members of Mrutyunjay Group, went to the house of applicant No.1 on 11th March 2010 at about 1.00 p.m. and forcibly removed cash and golden ornaments from the residential house of applicant No.1. It is further alleged that the said accused also tried to molest the women folk and manhandled them and hence after taking medical treatment, report came to be lodged with Parner police station at 5.10 p.m. Learned counsel for applicants has urged that only to give counter blast to the report lodged against Sachin, the present complaint has been lodged against the applicant at 5.40 p.m. by his wife. 6. Considering this aspect it requires to consider that though the alleged incident had occurred at 11.30 yet complaint in respect of the same has been made at 5.40 and no explanation for the delay has been offered. It also requires to take into consideration that none of the member from the side of the complainant in CR No.44/2010 is required to be taken to the hospital. On the contrary, in the offence at CR No.43/2010, the female folk were taken for medical treatment and thereafter the incident was reported to the police, appears to be more probable. {4} Though the learned APP tried to urge that there are certain criminal antecedents to the credit of present applicants, of the year 2007, yet considering the incident of 11th March 2010, it appears that case is made out by the applicants to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted on 18.05.2010 is hereby confirmed and the same to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. Within mean time, the applicants are directed to attend the Parner police station on each Monday in between 10.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. The applicants are further directed not to contact or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1942-10