{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3496 OF 2010 1. Satyabhama Kishanrao Kendre APPLICANTS 2. Balaji Sugram Gutte VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.S.Chaudhari, Advocate for the applicants Mr.D.R.Kale, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 20th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.84/2010 registered at Kandhar police station, Dist-Nanded for an offence punishable u/s 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that interim protection was granted in favour of the applicants by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2010. {2} 3. Today, when the application came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 4. The complainant has alleged that the applicants have contacted the complainant on 29.07.2009 and induced him to part with Rs.1,10,000/- on the assurance of giving him a government job. It is alleged that the complainant had given the said amount to the applicants in presence of some persons. It is further alleged that instead of providing government job, as assured, the applicants appointed the complainant in a private hospital and when he questioned about the same, the applicants told that he would get the government job later on. It appears that as the complainant did not get government job, the complaint has been filed. 5. Perusal of the complaint discloses that statements of witnesses who were present at the time of receiving money are recorded. The witnesses support the contention of the complainant. However, the fact remains that the alleged incident occurred on 29th July 2009, and there is no explanation in the complaint as to why the complaint is lodged after about 10 months. The delay in lodging the complaint has not been explained in the complaint. In the premise and considering the fact that the applicants are residents of Sangli district and the complainant is from Nanded district, prima facie it appears that custodial {3} interrogation of the applicants is not necessary and hence the application deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim relief granted on 06.09.2010 is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicants are directed to attend the concerned police station, if required for interrogation by the IO concerned, on written requisition. Applicants not to misuse the liberty. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3496-10