1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1081 OF 2010 Prabhu s/o Narhari Harale & ors. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for applicants Shri D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 25th March, 2010 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant Nos.1 to 4 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with C.R. No.28/2010, registered at Gramin Police Station, Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 452, 323, 509, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that, the complaint was registered on the report lodged by complainant Ramkrishna Manik Shinde on 3.3.2010, alleging that at about 8.00 p.m. on the said date, the accused Sahdeo Prabhu Harale and the applicants entered into his 2 house and they were armed with weapons like sticks and stones and abused the complainant, and accused Sahdeo Prabhu Harale and applicant No.4 Jaydeo Prabhu Harale assaulted the complainant on stomach, back and chest by fist blows and leg kicks and when complainant's cousin brother Anil, Achyut and Sunil intervened to release the complainant, they were also assaulted by the applicants by fist blows and leg kicks and took away the amount of Rs.2500/- from shirt pocket of the complainant, and applicant No.4 Jaydeo snatched the locket weighing two tolas from the neck of Achyut Shinde and when they requested to return back the said cash amount and locket, the applicants and Sahdeo Harale threatened the complainant and others that they would wipe off their entire house and they gave kicks in the stomach of the complainant and also gave threats to complainant and others of their lives and fled away through adjoining lane. 4. On the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the applicants urged that there is delay of about 6 to 7 hours in lodging the complaint and the said delay creates the suspicion about the said complaint itself. Learned counsel for the applicants also canvassed that there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicants and the applicants would cooperate in the investigation if present application is allowed. 5. The learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and 3 opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the aspect of delay can be considered at the time of appreciation of evidence during the trial and not at this stage and further urged that there are number of eye witnesses to the occurrence of incident. It is also canvassed by learned A.P.P. that resolution was passed by Grampanchayat, Ghatangari in respect of proposal for externment of Sahadu Harale, who in fact is Advocate and cousin of the applicants herein. It is also submitted that the amount of Rs. 2500/- and the locket weighing two tolas are yet to be recovered and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. 6. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions, there is no dispute that the aspect of delay in lodging F.I.R. can be considered at the time of trial after appreciation of evidence and not at this stage. Apart from that, the statements of Babasaheb Nagnath Bichkule, Vikram Vishwanath Shinde, Samadhan Chandu Shinde and Ganesh Jagannath Shinde etc. recorded during the course of investigation which apparently involves the applicants in the alleged crime. Moreover, sight cannot be lost of the aspect that Ghatangari Grampanchayat has passed the resolution on 11.4.2009 in respect of externment proposal regarding the applicants herein and Shahadu, who in fact is Advocate and cause of tension in the village. Besides that, the cash amount of Rs.2500/- and locket weighing two tolas are yet to 4 be recovered. Hence, having the comprehensive view of the matter, it is apparent that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is essential for the further progress of the investigation in constructive manner and, therefore, present application does not bear any substance and same is devoid of any merits. 7. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed and interim protection, if any, stands vacated. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri1081.10