(1) CRI.APP. 3087.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3087 OF 2010 Manish S/o Lalaji Mate, Age : 30 years, Occu.: Service R/o N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad .. Applicant VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondents Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. S.D. Shelke, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 30TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an application filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant alleges that he is likely to be arrested in connection with Crime no. 246 of 2010 registered at Mukundwadi Police Station without there being substantial reason to proceed with the (2) CRI.APP. 3087.2010 investigation. The applicant's case is that the complainant Vishal used to contact his wife on mobile phone and used to talk with her in vulgar language. The applicant alleges that he was assaulted by the complainant when he and his brother-in-law went to the hotel of said Vishal. According to the applicant, complainant Vishal gave abuses to him on caste and thereafter, he and his friend Sameer Choudhari assaulted him by means of a iron rod. He and other accomplices assaulted them and complainant Vishal stabbed him in his back by means of a knife. The case of the applicant is that such incident occurred on 14.7.2010 at the hotel of complainant Vishal where he was called. According to him, though he was injured and had lodged FIR, yet his FIR was not registered immediately. He was admitted in the hospital on the same day but his report was recorded on 19.7.2010 whereas the report given by complainant Vishal was recorded earlier. 3. Heard learned counsel and learned APP. (3) CRI.APP. 3087.2010 4. There is no dispute about the fact that on 17.7.2010 the complaint of injured Vishal was recorded for offence under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and others and on the same day the complaint application of the applicant against the said Vishal was registered. It appears that both of them lodged counter complaints against each other. The question is whether the applicant is likely to be arrested without there being any substratum to implicate him in connection with the alleged crime. The FIR lodged by complainant Vishal purports to show that in the evening of 14th July, 2010 while he was closing the hotel, the applicant alongwith his accomplices went there. They were armed with a sword, satoor, iron rod and stick. It is alleged that the applicant called him out and thereafter when he had gone out, immediately the applicant assaulted him by means of the knife. It is further alleged that his friend Sameer Choudhari intervened and the applicant assaulted Sameer Choudhari by means of sword. According to the applicant, he and his brother-in-law (4) CRI.APP. 3087.2010 had gone to the hotel of complainant so as to make enquiry about the phone calls received by his wife on the mobile phone. The fact that they had gone to the hotel is prima facie clear. It is difficult to believe, without there being reliable evidence, that the applicant alongwith others had gone to hotel of complainant Vishal at such closing hours of the business only to make innocuous enquiry regarding the telephone calls received on mobile phone of his wife. There are counter accusations, no doubt, made by the applicant in his complaint. 5. It prima facie appears that complainant Vishal and his friend Sameer Choudhari were immediately rushed to Sumananjali hospital. There were two contused lacerated wounds found on person of Sameer Choudhari whereas there were single contused lacerated wound found on parital occipital region on person of complainant Vishal. It appears that there were injuries found on the person of the applicant when he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital at 9:45 pm. The medical certificates and the nature (5) CRI.APP. 3087.2010 of averments in the complaints filed by both the sides, prima facie, go to show that the applicant and his henchmen had gone to the hotel of complainant Vishal in order to teach him a lesson. It is more probable that there was assault on complainant Vishal and it was countered by him and his friend as well as the staff members of the hotel. 6. Under these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to claim liberty at this juncture when the investigation is under progress. The Anticipatory Bail Application is therefore dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp