{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2188 OF 2010 1. Navnath s/o Babasaheb Dange Age-24 years, Occ-Business R/o Mukundwadi, Aurangabad 2. Neel s/o Kakasaheb Patil Age-26 years, Occ-Student R/o Harsul, Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through In-charge police station, MIDC, CIDCO, Aurangabad 2. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the applicants Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for respondent State Mr. M.P.Gude, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 18th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in {2} connection with CR No.50/2010 registered with MIDC, CIDCO, police station for an offence punishable u/s 143 to 149, 326, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that the applicants are protected vide order dated 14th June 2010. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP, who is assisted by learned counsel for original complainant. 4. Perusal of the complaint shows that the said offence is registered on 24th May 2010 in respect of an incident, which has occurred on 21st May 2010. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicants have forcibly dragged the victim in a car and he was assaulted with razor. On perusal of the injury certificate it prima facie appears that no offence punishable u/s 326 is made out, as the nature of injuries found on the person of the victim is not grievous. Apart from it, in the last part of the complaint there is reference that the complainant was admitted in Ghati Hospital in the early hours of 22nd May 2010. No record is available, at least before this Court, to show that complainant was initially admitted in Ghati hospital for medical treatment. It is alleged that from Ghati hospital the victim was taken to Sainath hospital from where he was discharged within 24 hours. In the complaint there is reference that father of the applicant had received a phone call, however no record is available in respect of the said phone call. {3} Considering the entire nature of allegations, which is vague in nature, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 5. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim relief granted on 14.06.2010, is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2188-10 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2210 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2188 OF 2010 Rahul s/o Bapusaheb Sohale APPLICANT VERSUS Navnath s/o Babasaheb Dange & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. M.P.Gude, Advocate for applicant Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for respondent No.3 State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 18th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent No. 3, and Mr.Sapkal accepts for respondents No.1 and 2. 2. By this application, the applicant has prayed to allow him to assist the APP in opposing criminal application No. 2188/2010 for which the respondents have no objection. In the premise, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2188-10