1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1916 /2010 Satish Bhimraj Shinde Applicant. V E R S U S State of Maharashtra. Respondent. Shri H.D.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 21st MAY, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard Shri H.D. Deshmukh learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Phatke learned APP for respondent-State. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest under CR No.I - 58/2010 registered at Newasa Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under section 326, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under section 37 (1) (3), 135 of Bombay Police Act. 3. It appears that offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the victim namely Dnyaneshwar Uttam Waghmare on 5th March, 2 2010 alleging that on 1st March, 2010 at about 02.30 p.m. he and his friend namely Afroz Pathan were near water tank situated at village gate, at that time a quarrel was going on between the applicant namely Satish Shinde and his parents on account of family dispute. At that time, applicant herein poured kerosene on his own person and therefore the complainant and Afroz Pathan intervened and rescued the said quarrel. In the meanwhile, nearby persons also gathered there and complainant and his friend left the said spot. 4. It is also alleged in the said complaint that at about 08.30 p.m. on the said date when complainant and his friend Afroz were proceeding on motor cycle splendor from village gate, applicant came in front of said motor cycle who was under the influence of liquor and was armed with sickle and asked the complainant why he intervened in the quarrel and raised sickle and gave a blow thereof upon the complainant and thereby he sustained bleeding injury on his palm, head and his left palm was slit. Thereafter applicant left the said place after abusing and threatening the complainant. 5. On the aforesaid background learned counsel for the applicant urged that although alleged incident occurred on 1st March, 2010, First Information Report came to be lodged after delay of four days i.e. on 5th March, 2010, which is after thought. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no medical report in respect of the injured person. Hence, learned 3 counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. 7. Learned APP opposes the criminal application vehemently and submitted that there are direct accusations against the applicant and offence is of serious nature and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. It is also submitted by learned APP that incriminating weapon i.e sickle is yet to be recovered. Moreover, it is further pointed out that there are eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident. Hence learned APP submitted that application deserves to be rejected. 8. On perusal of investigation papers and considering submission it is apparent from the contents of the complaint that name of the applicant has been reflected in the FIR as well as specific role/ overt act has been attributed to him in the alleged commission of offence. Moreover there are direct accusations against the applicant that he assaulted the complainant by sickle whereby his left palm has been split. Moreover incriminating weapon i.e. sickle is yet to be recovered. Hence considering the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the alleged crime. Moreover custodial interrogation of the applicant is also necessary for the recovery of the sickle. As regards the objection regarding delay in lodging the FIR, the said aspect can be considered at the time of trial and need not be considered at this stage. Moreover, there are eye witnesses 4 to the occurence of incident including Afroz Pathan whose statement, apparently, connect the applicant with the alleged crime. Accordingly considering the direct accusations against the applicant in the complaint and also considering serious nature this is not a fit case to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, present application bears no substance and same is therefore rejected. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) VACATION JUDGE. ..... aaa/1916.10