1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3092 OF 2009 1. Rajesh S/o.Raosaheb Deshmukh, Age-35 years, Occu-Agrilculturist, R/o.Tuppa, Tal.Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli, 2. Vilas S/o.Ganeshrao Suryawanshi, Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o. As above 3. Raosaheb S/o.Wamanrao Deshmukh, Age-65 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.As above. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. The Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Kalamnuri, Tal.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli, 3. Jyoti W/o.Bhimrao Paikrao, Age-35 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Tuppa, Tal.Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli RESPONDENTS Mr.N.R.Jamdhade, learned counsel for the applicants. Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent no.1 and 2 Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 (Absent) (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 19/11/2009 2 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed for their release on bail in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.90 of 2009, registered in Kalamnuri Police Station, for an offence punishable u/s. 354, 506, 34 of The IPC and u/s. 3(1)(10) of The S.C. And S.T. (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. 2. As the notice of the application is already served on respondent State, papers of investigation till carried out are placed in my hand for my perusal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. 4. The alleged offence registered against these applicants on the complaint of one Jyoti Bhimrao Paikrao. Perusal of the complaint shows that the alleged incidence occurred in the early morning of 23/08/2009 in the open space behind a public school. It is narrated that the complainant went for attending the natural call at open space behind the school, and when she was on her way to her residence, applicant no. 1 and 2 came there, caught hold her hands and tried to outrage her modesty and uttered the words in relation with her caste. It is also alleged in the said complaint that on hearing her shouts, her husband came there and when the applicant no.1 and 2 saw her husband coming there, they fled away from the place. On the basis of this complaint, offence was registered and further investigation is carried out. 3 5. It is urged across the bar on behalf of the applicants that due to political rivalry, this false complaint is lodged. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the application. 6. Considering the submissions across the bar that this is a anticipatory bail application about the alleged offence registered on the basis of this complaint. This complaint clearly discloses the role against applicant no.1 and 2 as played by them, but is silent about any act or any action on the part of applicant no.3. Considering the disclosure of facts in the complaint and as the investigation still is in progress, no case made out so far as applicant no.1 and 2 to enlarge them on bail in case of their arrest. Hence the application require following order : O R D E R 1. Application is partly allowed. 2. In the event of arrest of applicant no.3, he be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. This protection is given for the period of 4 weeks. Within meantime, this applicant may apply for regular bail. 4. Application in respect of applicant no.1 and 2 stand rejected. 5. Application is accordingly disposed of. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3092-09