{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3532 OF 2009 Nandkishor @ Babanrao s/o Narsingrao Shinde (Hande) Age-46 years, Occ-Agriculture & Social Work R/o Dhalegoan, Tq-Ahmedpur Dist-Latur APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent of Police, Latur, Dist-Latur RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for the respondents State Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.64/2009 registered with Kingaon police station for an offence punishable u/s 395, 143, 147, 148, 149, 354, 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the learned APP appearing for the state, who is assisted by {2} Mr.V.D.Gunale, counsel for original complainant. 3. It appears that vide order dated 8th October 2009, interim protection was granted to the applicant. 4. By drawing my attention towards the incident disclosed in the complaint lodged by Advocate Gundere, it is urged across the bar that due to political rivalry and to blacken the image of the present applicant, he is falsely implicated in the case whereas he has nothing to do with the alleged incident. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is a Sarpanch of the village and have a good reputation. It is also urged across the bar that considering the allegations in the compliant it can be inferred that the same are vague and no such act, as alleged, is committed by the applicant. 5. The application is vehemently opposed not only by the learned APP but also on behalf of the original complainant. 6. Perusal of papers of investigation prima faice discloses that the statement of the eye witnesses, who have witnessed the incident, indicate the role played by the applicant as he, along with his associates reached at the spot and snatched the golden chain and removed cash from the pocket of the complainant and assaulted the complainant and his companions. Prima facie, there appears some substance in the allegations for an offence punishable u/s 395 of the IPC. 7. Two things require to be considered while granting or refusing the anticipatory bail. Firstly, as to whether there is any false {3} implication of the applicant in the alleged offence for which the compliant is lodged and secondly whether there are any criminal antecedents to the credit of the applicant. So far as first parameter is concerned, it prima facie appears that there is no false implication of the applicant, as tried to be projected. Secondly, during the course of submissions across the bar, a list of offenses registered against the present applicant is placed in my hand, which shows that prior to 2009, four offenses are registered against the applicant under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including u/s 307 and in the year 2009 about 6 offenses are registered against the applicant out of which 3 offenses are u/s 353 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the applicant has a criminal background to his credit. In the premise, it cannot be said that it is a case of false implication nor can it be said that the applicant is a person of good reputation in the society and to malign his reputation, he is falsely implicated in the present case. 8. In the result, no case is made out to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Application stands rejected. The interim protection already granted is hereby vacated. Application is disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3532-09