1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2857 OF 2010 Kishan S/o.Baliram Shinde and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.N.N.Chitlange, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.P.P.More, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 04/08/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.28/2010, registered in Narsi (Namdeo) Police Station. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Earlier when the application was moved on 21/07/2010, considering the fact that there are counter complaints filed by the applicants and complainant against each other, interim protection was granted to these applicants. 2 4. The said offence was registered on the complaint of one Narayan Baliram, of which the first applicant is cousin brother, while applicant no.2 and 3 are nephews. It appears from the complaint that there is some dispute over way in the agricultural field of the complainant between applicants and complainant. Because of that, in the early hours, some exchange of words took place between the applicants and complainant. Because of said event, in the night around 9.00 p.m., these applicants alongwith other family members came at the residence of complainant. At that time, applicant no.2 and 3 were holding iron rods in their hands while the female members were holding some other weapons. They all had assaulted the complainant, hence the complaint came to be lodged. 5. During the course of submissions across the bar, my attention is drawn towards the affidavit filed before the lower Court of the witnesses by name Sandip Shinde and Digambar Shinde, of whose statements were recorded by the Investigation Officer on 27/06/2010 in the capacity of eye witnesses, on the next day after the incident was reported in the police station. The statements recorded by the police of the eye witnesses supported the facts narrated in the complaint, while in the affidavit filed before the Lower Court on 27/06/2010, they have retracted with their statements. 6. The very purpose to grant the bail or release the accused on anticipatory bail in connection with non bailable offence is not to curtail their liberty in the event of their arrest. Another aspect is 3 that if the applicants are released on bail, they have to co-operate the investigation agency and not to tamper the evidence of prosecution. Very record before the Court, the statement of the eye witnesses which support the version given by the complainant about the incident occurred, is retracted before the investigation is over. It appears from these instances that there are attempts on the part of applicants to interfere in the investigation. If before any order of bail is passed by the Court in favour of applicants, there are such attempts to interfere in the investigation, these applicants are not deserved for any leniency. Application is devoid of any merit, hence rejected. Interim protection granted earlier stands vacated. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/AUG 2010/cri.appl.2857-10