1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2647 OF 2010 1. Digambar Ramchandra Chavan, Age-59 years, Occu-Retired, 2. Ganesh Dhondiba Chavan, Deleted Age-45 years, Occu-Agriculture, 3. Bhaskar Ramchandra Chavan, Age-61 years, Occu-Agriculture, All R/o.Nanegaon, Tq.Badnapur, Dist. Jalna APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for applicants. Mrs.V.A.Shinde, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 23/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants are before this Court for their release on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.85/2010, registered in Badnapur Police Station of Dist. Jalna. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Record shows that on the first day, when the application was moved, learned counsel for applicants fairly conceded that after the application was filed, and before the circulation was taken, second applicant to this application was arrested by the police, hence sought permission to delete his name, and now the application is restricted so far as applicant no.1 and 3 are concerned. Record further shows that interim protection was granted to these applicants vide order dated 14/07/2010. 4. It appears that this CR came to be lodged on the complaint of one Pramod Chavan against these applicants and 8 other persons. On perusal of the facts disclosed in the complaint, it reveals that there is dispute over the open land situated in front of Aanganwadi, where the first applicant and his family members are allegedly constructing some construction and inquiry was in progress to that effect. The alleged incident as projected in the complaint, took place around 12.00 noon. At this juncture, this Court require to take a note of the fact that even though the incident was occurred on 10/06/2010 at about 12.00 noon, it was reported in the police station after about 10 hours. The incident is witnessed by number of witnesses, but no one had taken care to report the incident immediately in the police station. The contents in the complaint about the allegations lavelled against first applicant are that he has 3 assaulted with the firewood in his hand, which do not corroborate from the medical evidence of the injured, and so far as allegations against 3rd applicant are concerned, they are vague. 5. These allegations require to be considered in the light of submissions across the bar as the material is produced before this Court that on the same day, the same complainant and his friends Uday Chavan and Rajendra Gaikwad had assaulted the son of first applicant in the incident which occurred around 11.30 a.m. on the same day and the incident was reported in the police station immediately at 2.30 p.m., wherein son of the first applicant had also sustained serious injuries. The complaint is totally silent on this aspect. Further my attention is drawn towards the complaint lodged by the first applicant before the police authorities vide application dated 27/04/2010. The 2nd applicant whose name is deleted in this application was a Sarpanch of the village, who is the brother of applicant no.1 and 3. He has reported to the Supdt of Police, Jalna about the blackmailing tactics at the hands of complainant in this CR as by misusing the rights given to the citizens under the Right to Information Act, he is blackmailing these applicants as well as number of other villagers, and for that, earlier also several complaints were lodged in Badnapur Police Station against the complainant in this CR. 6. Learned APP opposed the bail application on the ground that the incident is witnessed by number of witnesses, whose statements 4 were recorded during the investigation. The facts disclosed from the statements of these witnesses do not corroborate with the medical evidence. Apart from it, from the counter cases which are placed on record, it appears that the said offence is nothing, but the result of political rivalry. In view of this, a case is made out to exercise the discretion of this Court, hence order- O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Interim protection granted on 14/07/2010 is hereby extended till filing of the charge sheet. 3. Applicants to co-operate the investigation agency and to attend the police station on written intimation by the Investigation Officer concerned. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.2647-10