{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2878 OF 2010 Raghunath Namdeo Salve & another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. D.R.Adhav, Advocate for the applicants Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 12th August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.254/2010 registered with Pathardi police station. 2. It appears that the applicants are protected by way of interim protection by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2010. 3. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP. {2} Also perused the papers of investigation. 4. This offence is registered on the complaint of one Bhagwan in respect of an incident dated 03.07.2010 which occurred at about 12.15 noon. It is alleged that as the cattle of applicants grazed in the orchard of the complainant he questioned the first applicant and hence the first applicant assaulted the complainant and when his wife tried to intervene, applicant No.2 assaulted her with kick and fists blows on nose and head. Thereafter, father of the complainant came there to rescue them and they were taken to hospital hospital at Pathardi and thereafter, the complaint came to be registered. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that since there is dispute between the applicants and complainant over an agricultural land, they are falsely implicated in this offence. It is asserted that relations between applicant No.1 and the complainant is of uncle and nephew. Applicant No.2 is the daughter in law of applicant No.1. Learned counsel for the applicants urged that the age of applicant No.1, i.e. 70 years, may also be taken into consideration while deciding the matter and allegations against applicant No.2 to be tested in the light of previous dispute between the parties. 6. Learned APP vehemently opposed the bail application. {3} 7. Perusal of the medical papers indicates that the complainant and his wife were examined in the hospital at 12.00 noon when according to the complaint the alleged incident occurred at 12.15 on the same day and thereafter the injured were removed to police station from where they were referred to hospital at Pathardi, which is about 25 km away from the spot of the incident. Considering these aspects and the role attributed to the applicants, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. In the premise, the application deserves to be allowed. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted in favour of the applicants is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicants are directed to cooperate the investigating agency. 9. It is, however made clear that the above observes are prima facie based on the papers of investigation came before this Court and the same shall not be used as ground of party if application for bail is moved by accused Indrajit and Bhairu. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2878-10