1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1949 OF 2010 1. Charan Singh S/o.Chatar Singh Tatu, Age-20 years, Occu-Education, R/o.N-11, F-14/1, Navjivan Colony, Hudco, Aurangabad 2, Santosh Jayram Chaudhari, Age-20 years, Occu-Student, R/o.N-11, Navjivan Colony, Hudco, Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad RESPONDENT Mr.P.B.Waghmare, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.K.S.Patil, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 02/07/2010 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.69/10, registered in CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned APP for State. 2 Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Application was moved during the vacation on 21/05/2010, and interim protection was granted to the applicants. 3. Applicants claimed anticipatory bail in connection with CR No. 69/2010. The time of offence as per the allegations in the complaint is 11.30 a.m. on 01/03/2010. The incident was reported in the police station at 1.05 p.m. i.e. within one and half hour after the alleged incident took place. The applicants as well as the complainant are from the same vicinity, hence there are no chances of mistaken identity. 4. It is vehemently and repeatedly urged across the bar that there are counter complaints, wherein the police have changed the timings and created a false document to assist the complainant in CR No. 69/2010, is can not be accepted as on perusal of the complaint in connection with CR No.70/2010, it shows that the incident occurred on 01/03/2010, around 10.30 in the night, of which the incident was reported in the police station within one and half hour i.e. after midnight, and hence registered at 00.15 hours. It is but natural that when the incident was occurred as per the complaint at about 10.30 in the night, it will be reported thereafter and not prior to that. Hence, the submissions about creation of false and fabricated record at the hands of police can not be accepted in absence of any proof to that effect. Thus the fact is clear that it was noticed in the earlier 3 order that there are counter complaints between the parties, but so far as the incident, in which bail is claimed took place in the early hours on 01/03/2010, while the incident for which CR No.70/2010 was lodged, that incident occurred in the night of that day. These 2 incidents can not be clubbed together and both these CR's can not be said to be the offshoot of the same incident. 5. Now remain the fact of political rivalry. As nothing is before this Court to show that there is political rivalry between complainant, who has lodged CR No.69/2010, with these applicants, who claimed to be students, as their occupation as per description in the application itself, no case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. Hence stands rejected. Interim protection earlier granted stands vacated. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.1949-10