{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1613 OF 2010 Vivek Ashruba Potbhare APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 14th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.28/2010 registered with Majalgaon police station, Dist-Beed for an offence punishable u/s 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation and the police report. {2} 3. It appears that the said offence is lodged on the complaint of one Shakila Jalimoddin Siddiqui in respect of an incident, which has occurred in the night of 27th February 2010 at about 9.00 p.m. It is alleged in the complaint that when the complainant was returning from Ijtema (an Islamic religious fair), the applicant, one Rajesh Sonawane and two others intercepted him and after assaulting him with kicks and blows, removed cash in the sum of Rs.9700/- and one mobile hand set of Samsung company from the person of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant shouted for help and when two persons came there, the accused fled away. 4. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is a student and he has given a motorbike for repairs and as there was dispute in respect of repairing charges so also the bike was not properly repaired, the applicant had approached the complainant to inquire and he is falsely implicated in this case. 5. Learned APP vehemently opposed the application as according to learned APP, the applicant and the complainant are known to each other and hence there is no question of mistaken identity. 6. It is not disputed that in the night of 27th February, the applicant contacted the complainant. It is also brought to my notice that the present applicant was noticed at the spot by {3} independent witness. Learned APP has submitted that apart from the present case, there are 19 other cases filed under various sections of Indian Penal Code are pending against the applicant and about 4/5 cases in respect of prohibitory orders are also pending against him. Thus, it is clear that the applicant is a history sheeter. Record shows the presence of the applicant at the spot at the relevant time as well as acquittance of the applicant with the complainant is not disputed. In the premise, this is not a case where the court can exercise its discretion to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1613-10