{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2009 OF 2010 1. Mamlesh s/o Sheshrao Deshmukh Age-23 years, Occ-Agri R/o Aundha (N), Tq-Aundha (N) Dist-Hingoli 2. Santosh s/o Munjaji Darade Age-23 years, Occ-AGri / Business R/o Aundha (N), Tq-Aundha (N) Dist-Hingoli APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Investigation Officer, Police Station, Aundha Nagnath RESPONDENT ....... Mr.R.J.Nirmal, Advocate for the applicants Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22nd June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application the applicants {2} have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.46/2010 registered with Aundha Nagnath police station for an offence punishable u/s 395 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Interim protection is granted to the applicants by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2010. 3. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 4. It appears that the said offence is registered on 22.04.2010 on the complaint of one Shankar Kale. It is alleged that on 22nd April 2010 he had sold one property for the consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- and the said amount was kept in the dickey of the vehicle. It is further alleged that after the complainant reached at Aundha, he handed over the vehicle in the custody of the driver Gajanan without removing the cash, who took the same to his native place. It is also alleged that when the driver was proceeding, he had parked the vehicle near one Dhaba where 6 persons came with deadly weapons in their hands and they damaged the vehicle and removed the cash of Rs.1,80,000/-, which was kept in the dickey. In the complaint names of 4 persons are disclosed and two others are described as unknown, as they had covered their faces. {3} 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that though the names of the present applicants are not disclosed in the complaint yet, as father of one of the applicant was called in police station for investigation, the applicants have moved the present criminal application seeking anticipatory bail. 6. According to learned APP, the present applicants are the two persons who are described as unknown persons in the complaint. 7. Considering the recitals of the complaint the allegations that the amount of sale proceeds of Rs.1,80,000/- was kept in the dickey of a car do not appear to be feasible and cannot be accepted. Apart from it, without operating the key dickey could not have been opened and the cash could not have been removed. It is nobody's case that the key of the car was forcibly taken, the dickey was opened and then the cash was removed. The complaint is silent on this aspect. Thus, the complaint does not inspire confidence and creates doubt about the veracity of the complainant. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail in exercise of the discretion vested in this Court. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted in favour of the applicants on 28th May 2010 is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge {4} sheet. The applicants are directed to attend the concerned police station for interrogation as and when required by the concerned IO on written requisition. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2009-10