1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2276 OF 2010 Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Lal Patel, Age-26 years, Occu-Driver, R/o.Kadariya Nagar, Gali No.5, Misarwadi, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Swapnil Patil, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.D.V.Tele, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 06/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in connection with CR No. 178/2010, registered in Cidco N-7 Police Station. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. It appears that on 29/06/2010, interim protection was granted to the present applicant. Perusal of the documents shows that the FIR was lodged about the incident dated 05/05/2010 at about 6.30 2 p.m. about the incident took place near Misarwadi, in which complainant was assaulted by the son of the present applicant with other associates. According to the applicant, he is a truck driver and left with his truck on 04/05/2010, for which he want to rely on certain documents. Those documents shows that on 05/05/2010, he has passed the Dhule Check Post, for which receipt was issued on the Toll Naka by Dhule Municipal Corporation. This receipt do not show the truck no. Further reliance is placed upon the receipt issued at Dhule-Surat Check Post dated 11/05/2010. There was an invoice issued by the Gurukrupa Transport about delivery of consignment dated 10/05/2010. The truck no. mentioned in the receipt issued by Dhule-Surat Check Post and in the invoice issued by the Gurukrupa Transport, the vehicle number is not matching with each other. Thus the attempt to take the stand of alibi, is futile and can not be accepted at this stage. The role played by the present applicant is that he assaulted on the head of complainant with one iron rod in his hand, which is supported by the statement of the eye witnesses, and if it is so, this is not a case of false implication, which entitle the applicant to claim anticipatory bail. The application sans any merit, hence rejected. Interim protection, earlier granted, stands vacated. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.2276-10