1 crap3693.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3693 OF 2011 Vaibhav s/o Dharmanath Khalate, age 30 years, occ. business, r/o Shiral, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar ...Applicant VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, 2) Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents ..... Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for applicant Smt. R.K.Ladda, A.P.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 23rd September, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, as well as heard respective learned counsel for the parties finally. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant, namely Vaibhav Dharmanath Khalate, for anticipatory bail 2 crap3693.11 apprehending his arrest under C.R. No. M-45 of 2011, registered at Pathardi police station, District Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely Raghoba Shankar Petare on 12.8.2011. It is alleged in the said complaint that the applicant and his associate, who was armed with weapon, entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted him on his chest and stomach by leg kicks and also assaulted on his ear and face by giving slaps and the complainant was dragged out of the house by them and the applicant stated to his associate that, "Yala uchalun ghewun jawu halkat mang tyacha kata kadhun yanna bepatta karu, mi shivsenecha karyakarta aahe. Maze koni wakade karu shakat nahi." 4 Thus, it is apparent from the contents of the said 3 crap3693.11 complaint that the name of the applicant has been reflected therein and the specific role has been attributed to him during the occurrence of the incident, more particularly, it appears that the complainant was dragged out of the house and the utterances humiliating the complainant on his caste were apparently made out of the house of the complainant. 5 It is canvassed that although the incident occurred on 5.4.2011, the complaint came to be lodged after substantial delay i.e. on 12.8.2011. In the said context, it is stated in the complaint that the complainant was given Yadi by the police personnel and he has taken medical treatment in Pathardi Government Hospital, and apparently, explanation is tried to be given in respect of the said delay. 6 Besides, it is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that motor cycle, which was allegedly used in the commission of the offence, is yet to be recovered. In the said context, Smt. Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no reference to the motor cycle in the contents of the first information report. 4 crap3693.11 7 Having the comprehensive view of the matter and considering the accusations made against the applicant and nature and gravity thereof, it is apparent that there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the alleged crime and his custodial interrogation is imperative for the further progress in the investigation, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 8 In the result, present application lacks merits and stands dismissed. Interim protection stands vacated. 9 It is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. 10 The present application stands disposed of finally. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3693.11