1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3701 OF 2009 Mahananda Babasaheb Dudhal APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.M.P.Kale, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for the respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 11/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant herein has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in connection with offence registered vide CR No.30/2009 in Shirur Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 307, 324, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the learned APP for State. Considering the charge sheet already filed in the said offence, one accused Gajanan and the present accused is shown as an absconded accused, at the same time this applicant accused had filed an anticipatory bail application on two occasions before the Trial Court which were rejected and now the present 2 anticipatory bail application before this Court because now the charge sheet is filed and the accused is not required for any custodial interrogation. 3. On clear reading of the text of section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the scope to grant the anticipatory bail is not restricted where the applicant apprehended his arrest for the custodial interrogation only, but to avoid the threat, liberty to the person who may be falsely implicated in any crime registered against him and in that case, the protection required to be given to protect his liberty and from this clear reading of the text of section 438 of Cr.P.C., the facts of every application to be considered from that angle. 4. Considering the fact that on earlier two occasions, anticipatory bail application of the present applicant were rejected by the Trial Court and still the applicant is shown as absconded when the charge sheet is filed how the arrest was avoided. In the premise, it is presumed that even though much hue and cry was made that no steps were taken to arrest the accused in connection with the present crime. 5. My attention is tried to invite towards the contents of the complaint and some of the statements recorded during the investigation. The contents discloses that when the victim Purushottam received stab injury, at that time his hands were hold by the present applicant. It is tried to urge that considering the facts 3 disclosed in the complaint, where it is tried to colour or project that the alleged incident occurred inside the house of the complainant. At the same time, it is tried to project that the alleged incident not occurred inside the house of the complainant, but was occurred outside the house of the complainant. At this juncture, this Court did not feel it necessary to enter into that controversy as the date, time and place of the alleged occurrence of the incidence to be placed in the charge as required u/s. 210 and 211 of The Cr.P.C. Whether there is any controversy in the statements recorded during the investigation u/s. 161 which can be used only for contradiction purpose, that aspect will be looked into at the trial stage after the accused is surrendered before the Court and the charge will be framed against the accused and not at this stage. Considering the disclosure of the facts in the complaint and even though on earlier two occasions the application for anticipatory bail of this applicant was rejected and still the accused is freely lancing in the same village, which itself shows that there are attempts on the part of applicants to avoid the arrest. No merit in the application, application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3701-09