1 Cri.A.5341.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5341 OF 2011 Rajaram S/o Aappana Mane, Age : 57 Years, Occup.: Service, R/o 10/3/B, Bhavani Peth, Ghongade Vasti, Solapur, District Solapur. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.A.R.Devakate, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.B.J.Sonwane. A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Shri.N.L.Jadhav,Advocate for original complainant. ... CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 15.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. I have extensively heard the learned Advocate for the applicant. 2. The applicant Police Sub-Inspector apprehends arrest, in Crime No. 149 of 2011, registered with Ashti Police Station, District Beed. The FIR is filed on 12.10.2011 in regard to the incident, 2 Cri.A.5341.11 which is said to have taken place on 11.10.2011. The assailants, named in the FIR did assault Mr Balu Mama, who died in the course of occurrence. In the FIR there was specific mention in the nature of utterance by the persons, who were running away from the place after occurrence that present applicant have stated to Sunil Narayan Nath and Sunil Baburao Surywanshi that he will protect their interest. 3. I have perused the police paper. In the police papers one finds statement of Mr. Shaikh Shakir, who had overheard the conversation between the present applicant, Sachin, Bhausaheb, Mahendra and present applicant, wherein persons who rendered the statements heard that it was decided that Balu Mama, deceased should be seriously assaulted and his hands and legs will be cut. In the said conversation the present applicant has stated that he will protect their interest. It is noticed that Sachin and others did indulge in occurrence and assaulted said Balu Mama, who died in the course 3 Cri.A.5341.11 of occurrence. One Mr.H.H.More has also rendered statement in the line with, what is stated by shaikh Shakir. Mr. More had heard talk between Sachin and other persons. In the wake of this record, it is abundantly clear that present applicant had abated commission of the incident, which had taken place on 11.10.2011. It is required to be noted that present applicant is Sub-Inspector attached to very Police station, in whose jurisdiction the alleged incident had taken place and FIR came to be lodged. This aspect is against the present applicant. For the aforesaid reason, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the application will have to be rejected. Hence, the following order is passed. . Application stands rejected. . After the aforesaid order is passed, the learned Advocate for the applicant states that interim protection granted be extended for some 4 Cri.A.5341.11 time to enable the applicant to approach the Supreme Court. Since interim protection is running till today, and now the application for anticipatory bail is rejected, the applicant is entitled to protection for some time to enable him to take further steps in the matter. Hence, interim protection granted by order dated 09.12.2011 to continue till 31.12.2011. Sd/- [ R.Y.GANOO, J. ] MTK 5 Cri.A.5341.11