1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.APPLICATION NO.2839 OF 2008. (VINESH JAYANTILAL ADTIYA & ANR. Vs STATE OF MAH.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri Sudeep Jaiswal, Advocate for Applicants. Shri A.S.Sonare, A.P.P. for Respondent. CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J. DATED : AUGUST 28, 2008. 1. This application for anticipatory bail is pressed on the ground that there is background of enmity, hence, applicant No.1 has already lodged F.I.R. against the complainant, which is registered as NC No.328/2008 in Police Station, Rajapeth on 14th March, 2008. 2. According to the applicants, there was some scuffle and fight between the hotel owner and staff with the complainant on account of non-payment of bill of food drinks, in which the complainant might have suffered injuries and taking benefit of this past enmity with the accused false complaint is filed. 3. Third ground pressed into service is that when the incident occurred at 9.30 p.m. it is not explained as to why the complaint lodged at 3.30 a.m. in the morning. 2 4. Perused the police papers. 5. The benefit of timing sought to be taken by the applicants does not appear to be well founded. Though the F.I.R. is registered at 3.30 a.m., the victim was referred for medical examination and the medical examination was completed at 3.00 a.m. only. This indicates that after the medical examination only F.I.R. was registered, the complainant must have been before Police may be even hour a two before that time. The evidence collected by the prosecution supports the version of the complainant. 7. The applicants are not entitled to take benefit of cognizance of earlier non-cognizable case. 8. The applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail, as prayed for, particularly when the investigation is in progress and there is prima- facie evidence about their involvement. 9. In view of this, the application is rejected. JUDGE RR.