1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1461 OF 2010 Shivaji Vitthal Vilegave ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the applicant Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 3rd May, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the applicant and Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondents. 2 This is an application for anticipatory bail preferred by applicant apprehending his arrest under CR No. 3015 of 2010, registered at MIDC Latur police station, District Latur, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Haribhau Dhondiba Kawale Patil on 20.3.2010 in respect of the occurrence of the alleged incident on 19.3.2010. It is alleged in the said complaint that when the complainant's son namely Shambhu Raje was standing in front of complainant's office adjacent to his house, suddenly Ajay Vilegave and two gundas along with him, armed with sticks, rushed towards the complainant's son and attacked on him and thereby complainant's son sustained injury near head and on his back and hence complainant made inquiry about the same with his guardian, namely Vitthal Vilegave, but thereupon he stated to complainant that, "Dhorgya Tu Majala Aahes Wa Tuze Mulas Golya Ghalun Fukun Takin Tula Thar Marin". Accordingly, said guardian gave threats of life to the complainant and abused him. 4 It is also disclosed in the supplementary statement recorded on the same day i.e. 20.3.2010 that since the complainant was unaware about the name of guardian of Ajay Vilegave, he stated his name as Vitthal Vilegave for the complainant, but stated in the supplementary statement that name of guardian is Shiwaji Vitthal Vilegave i.e. applicant herein who gave the afore said threats to the complainant and uttered the above referred sentence towards him. 5 However, learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that 3 although the name of the applicant has been figured in the supplementary statement, his name has not been disclosed in the complaint dated 20.3.2010. Moreover, it is also canvassed that the alleged incident occurred adjacent to the house of complainant and in front of his office, and apparently, the alleged incident did not occur within the public view. It is also stated by learned counsel for the applicant that even the contents of the complaint as well as the contents of the supplementary statement do not disclose whether the complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, it is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no eye witness to the occurrence of the incident, and therefore, it is canvassed that the occurrence of incident and the allegations made by the complainant are under doldrums. 6 Having the comprehensive view of the matter, apparently there is substance in the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant, and therefore, consequently there may not be bar of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allowing the present application for anticipatory bail. 7 In the result, present application is allowed and interim protection granted to the applicant stands confirmed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, under CR No. 3015 of 2010, registered at MIDC Latur police station, District Latur, he be released on bail on 4 furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount, on the condition that he shall attend the police station as and when required on written intimation and shall cooperate in the investigation; and he shall not tamper with the evidence and /or influence upon the witnesses directly or indirectly. 8 The above observations are prima facie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1461.10