{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.505 OF 2010 Ajinath s/o Vitthal Shinde, Age-36 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Madagaon, Tq & Dist-Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through police station Nagar taluka, Dist-Ahmednagar RESPONDENT ....... Mr. R.R.ShaikhlAdvocate for applicant Mr. N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2nd March 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.95/2009 registered with Nagar taluka police station for an offence punishable u/s 307, 498-A, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned {2} APP. Also perused the papers of investigation. 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on 12.06.2009 on the complaint of one Sunita Shinde filed on 06.06.2009. Perusal of the complaint indicates that the alleged incident, which constituted an offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC, allegedly taken place on 15.11.2003. It is alleged that at the time when the complainant was admitted in the hospital, she had given false statement that she had sustained burn injuries due to explosion of gas. Even thereafter the complainant resided with her in laws, as her husband, applicant was in defence service and he had left to join his duties. 4. The second alleged incident, is dated 10.12.2007. It is alleged that after the applicant retired from defense service, he started residing with his first wife Kalpana. It is further alleged that when the complainant went there, she was driven away by the applicant and threated with dire consequences. Along with this application, criminal applications No.592/2010 and 593/2010 are also filed by the applicant. Along with the said applications, decree of divorce passed by competent civil court, in divorce petition No. 85/2001, is annexed. The decree of divorce indicates that the same was granted on the ground of desertion. In spite of the decree of divorce, there are allegations that the applicant, after his retirement, has started residing and cohabiting with his divorced wife. Complaint in respect of the said offence is registered, after a {3} period of more than 2 years. 5. On bare reading of the present FIR, I do not find explanation as to why there is delay of 5 years 7 months in respect of first incident and of 1 years and 6 months in respect of second incident. Considering the entire record, prima faice, possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicant by using discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted on 16.02.2010, is hereby confirmed and the same to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln505-10