{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2493 OF 2010 Anil Dagadu Chitale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Sandeep S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed for pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.216/2010 registered with Pathardi police station for an offence punishable u/s 326, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by {2} learned APP. Also perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. It appears that the said offence is lodged in respect of an incident which occurred in the early hours of 02.06.2010. It is alleged that as there was boundary dispute between the applicant and complainant, the complainant had asked as to why the applicant damaged the boundary and due to the said query, the applicant got enraged and gave a blow of a spade, which he was holding in his hand, on the head of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to a government hospital at Tisgaon from where he was referred to hospital at Ahmednagar where the complainant was treated and thereafter the complaint came to be lodged on 03.06.2010. 4. Considering the relations between the parties, there is no question of mistaken identity. According to learned counsel for applicant there is delay in lodging the complaint as the incident is alleged to have been occurred on 02.06.2010 at 6.00 a.m. however complaint is lodged on 03.06.2010 at 21.15 hours, which shows {3} that after hatching a plan to implicate the applicant, the offence is registered. I am afraid to accept this submission, for, in the complaint itself the cause for delay in lodging the compliant is explained, as the complainant had sustained serious injuries he was taken to Ahmednagar for treatment and hence he could not lodge the compliant at earlier point of time. Injury certificate issued to the complainant indicates that there was fracture to the skull of the complainant. Considering the fact that the applicant and complainant are well acquainted with each other, there is no question of mistaken identity so also the complainant has attributed a specific role against the applicant. In the premise, no case is made out by the applicant for grant of pre-arrest bail. In the result, the application, which is devoid of any merit, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2493-10