{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4087 OF 2010 Dadasaheb Sahebrao Toradmal & Another APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. H.U.Dhage, Advocate for the applicants Mr. D.R.Kale, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants-father and son, seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.150/2010 registered with Karjat police station, Dist-Ahmednagar. 2. Interim protection is granted by this Court in favour of the applicants. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 4. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Bhaskar Gangarde, in respect of an incident dated 28.08.2010. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicants used to provide liquor or money to purchase liquor to his brother Popat, with ulterior motive. It is also alleged that the applicants {2} were warned by the complainant in the past and once there was quarrel between the complainant and the applicants on that count. Thus, it is clear that the parties are well acquainted with each other. It is alleged that the alleged incident has taken place on 28.08.2010, when he had scolded the applicants on account of providing liquor to his brother. Thereafter, it is alleged, he went to one shop where the applicants with others assaulted him and damaged the shop. It is the allegation in the complaint that due to the assault the complainant became unconscious and was shifted to a hospital and thereafter the complaint was lodged. During the investigation statements of the witnesses are recorded. The injury certificate indicates that the complainant had sustained 4 injuries out of which nature of two injuries is grievous. The complainant was admitted in a hospital as an indoor patient. In view of the fact that the complainant was admitted in the hospital as indoor patient and hence there was delay in lodging the complaint and, therefore, no fault can be found in lodging the complaint late. Apart from it the allegations in the complaint are supported by the statements of the eye witnesses. It prima facie appears that there cannot be false implication. In the premise, discretionary relief cannot be exercised in favour of the applicant. Consequently, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln4087-10