1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3727 OF 2009 Bharat S/o.Balbhimrao Deshmukh, and another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.K.F.Shingare, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for the respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants are praying for anticipatory bail in case of their arrest in connection with CR NO. 330/2009, registered in Cidco Police Station of Aurangabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, followed by the arguments of learned APP appearing for respondent State. As the notice was earlier issued, learned APP placed on record papers of investigation till carried out. 3. It is urged the across the bar that considering the contents of the complaint dated 02/10/2009 that incident took place on 29/09/2009 at about 3.30 a.m. in front of the house of complainant in view of the 2 earlier incident occurred on 26/09/2009, when the Proprietor of Shradha Grocery shop, demanded the due bill from the complainant. On receipt of the cell phone message, it was informed to collect the due bill from the respondents and on this count, threats were given to the complainant by the present applicant for which Non Cognizable Offence was registered u/s. 507 of The IPC vide NC No.1066/2009. Again on 29/09/2009, it is alleged that these applicants contacted the complainant at his residence and at that time they were asking the complainant as to why they have called the Proprietor of the said grocery shop to collect the due bill. On the point of knife by applicant no.1 and on the point of thick wooden stick, the complainant was assaulted and the gold chain weighing 2 tolas and the golden rings weighing 5 gms and 7 gms were taken off from his person by these applicants. Due to this assault, the complainant lodged the complaint after 2 days of the incident when he recovered from his injuries. It is submitted across the bar that the earlier NC was lodged immediately after the alleged incidence. So far as the vehicle shown as used by these applicants, that vehicle was not in existence as per the RTO report, but this vehicle number is given to one Scooty Motor Bike and not to the Kawasaki Motor Cycle and third on the same day, the police have also referred these applicants for medical treatment to the Medical Hospital. In the premise, according to the applicant, the applicants are falsely involved in the false complaint lodged at the hands of complainant, who claimed to be the journalist. Having intention to put the applicants behind bar, the complaint lodged by him, hence prayed to release them on bail in case of their arrest in connection with that offence. 3 4. According to learned APP appearing for the State, considering the nature of offence took place in front of the house of the complainant in broad day light where the role played by the applicants was clearly disclosed and also the injuries were supported by the medical papers collected during the investigation till carried out and the third person who is accompanied with these applicants is not till traced, prayed to reject the bail application. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar and particularly the reference given by the applicants that they were also referred for the medical treatment as they have received serious injuries, it is nowhere explained as to why on that particular date, and on that particular time, these applicants received the serious injuries for which even though according to advocate for applicant, police declined to register an offence. On the point that at whose hands these injuries were received by the applicants are silent and in case no cognizance was taken by the police, no private complaint was also lodged in the Court of Magistrate and if this is so, and there is disclosure about the role played by the applicants, find place in the complaint lodged by the complainant, this is not a fit case to use discretion of this Court to grant anticipatory bail and liable to be rejected, hence order - Application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3727-09