1 Cri.A.2534.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2534 OF 2011 1. Rahul S/o Nagorao Manwate, Age : 25 Years, Occup.: Education, R/o Venkati Plot Purna, Taluqa Purna, District Parbhani. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.P.N.Sonpethkar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P. for Respondent. ... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 30TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for anticipatory bail, in Crime No. 69 of 2011, registered with Osmanpura Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code. APP has produced papers of investigation, which includes Medical Certificate of the injured. Both sides are heard. 2. First Informant has made allegation against the present applicant that present applicant was harassing wife of applicant right from College 2 Cri.A.2534.11 days. Already one case is filed against the applicant due to harassment. On 27.03.2011 his wife told that one person was roaming around their house and then they noticed that one chit addressed to wife of informant was there. One Mobile Number was also written on the said Chit. When complainant went outside, he noticed vehicle- van at a some distance of from his house and the mobile Number was present on the said vehicle-van. When he went towards Vehicle-van, the driver of Vehicle-van, drove the vehicle-van towards him and gave dash to him. According to first informant, the driver made attempt to finish him by giving dash of vehicle- car. Injury Certificate produced on record shows that complainant was examined on the same day. The injuries, however, described are as abrasion and there was no history of vomiting. APP submitted that in such cases sustaining of injury is not material, as there is allegation that there was intention to finish. Advocate for the applicant submitted that he was called by the wife of first informant and it was not one sided love affair. He also submitted that article like Mobile, vehicle are seized and police should no need custodial interrogation in this case. 3. Aforesaid circumstances show that there are allegations that applicant has evil eye on the wife of first informant and he is harassing her. Allegations made by the first informant against the applicant is that 3 Cri.A.2534.11 applicant tried to finish him, by driving the vehicle - van against him, and in that incident first informant sustained injuries. Advocate for applicant submitted that Sessions Court has granted ad-interim relief. In support of his submission advocate for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Fida Hussin Bohra Vs. State of Maharashtra, (Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 2009 decided on 03.03.2009.) reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2080. The propositions in the cited case are on the point of cancellation of anticipatory bail and criteria for bail. Facts and circumstances of each and every case are different for consideration. Consideration for anticipatory bail are totally different. Such relief is discretionary in nature. This Court holds that it is not fit case to grant such relief. Custodial interrogation is necessary. So, application stands rejected. No further interim relief. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK 4 Cri.A.2534.11