{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4050 OF 2010 1. Sanjay Baburao Yerpudwad 2. Sudhir Baburao Yerpudwad 3. Ramkishan Yadavrao Yerpudwad 4. Manoj @ Manohar Baburao Yerpudwad APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the applicants Mr.D.R.Kale, APP for respondent State Mr.G.D.Kale, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22nd October 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants seek pre- arrest bail in connection with Crime No.159/2010 registered at Mukhed police station, Nanded. 2. It appears that interim protection was granted in favour of the applicants on 11.10.2010. {2} 3. It further appears that this offence is registered on the basis of complaint lodged by one Pundlik Punde while he was admitted in ward No.2, Civil Hospital, Nanded. It is alleged in the complaint that due to election dispute, at about 4.30 p.m. on 8th September 2010, the applicants assaulted the complainant, abused him in the name of his caste and forcibly administered him some poisonous substance and hence he was admitted a rural hospital at Mukhed, from where he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Nanded and thereafter the complaint came to be lodged. Thus, apprehending arrest, the applicants are before this Court. 4. During the course of submissions it is brought to my notice that on the same day an offence at Crime No.155/2010 is registered against the present complainant and 10 others on the allegations that on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. the complainant and his associates had assaulted applicants No.1 and 4 with deadly weapons, which had resulted in their admission at rural hospital, Mukhed by the police, who were present there. In the hospital, on the statement of applicant No.1, complaint was recorded at Crime No.155/2010 at 7.00 p.m. against the applicant and others. It is urged that if the incident, as alleged in complaint in CR No.159/2010 has taken place at 4.30 p.m. wherein the complainant was allegedly administered poison, then how the complainant was present at the time of assault on applicants No.1 and 4. Moreover, there is no explanation for the delay in lodging {3} the complaint at crime No.159/2010. In the premise, there is room for doubt and the possibility that to give counter blast to complaint at Crime No.155/2010, the present complaint at Crime No. 159/2010 is lodged, cannot be ruled out. Thus, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court. 5. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 11.10.2010 in favour of the applicants, is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicants are directed to attend the concerned police station, if required for interrogation, on written intimation from IO concerned. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln4050-10