1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1809 OF 2010 1. Ravindra S/o.Balkrishna Andhale, Age-34 years, Occu-Service, 2. Dadasaheb S/o.Kashinath Ghanwat, Age-45 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 3. Sanjay S/o.Vishwanath Ghanwat, Age-35 years, Occu-Agriculturist, All R/o.At Post : Vaiju-Babhulgaon, Tq.Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.P.P.More, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 11/06/2010 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.92/2010, registered in Pathardi Police Station, Ahmednagar for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 2 326, 325, 324, 341, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. It appears that the application was moved for the first time on 07/05/2010, and at that time, interim protection was granted to all the applicants, which protection is continue till date. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned APP for State and also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 4. Perusal of papers of investigation shows that on the complaint of wife of applicant no.1 by name Asha Ravindra Andhale, an offence was registered in Pathardi Police Station Vide CR No.35/2010 against the complainant in this CR for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 452, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC. The complainant in this CR also filed a report to the said police station, but the police treated that report as NC. Thereafter, the chapter case was lodged against the applicants in which the bond was taken by these applicants and were released on bail. It appears that in the said complaint lodged by the wife of present applicant no.1, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and then the matter came up for further hearing. It appears that about the complaint lodged with the police by the complainant, which was treated as NC, private complaint was lodged by the complainant herein, in the court of J.M.F.C. Pathardi, which was numbered as RCC No.285/2009. On perusal of this complaint, and the report to the police about the same incident, lodged on 18/02/2010, the demonstration of the incident projected therein do 3 not match with each other. It appears that on the complaint lodged before the J.M.F.C. Pathardi, learned J.M.F.C. has passed an order of investigation u/s. 156(3) of The Cr.P.C. and accordingly in Pathardi Police Station, an offence came to be registered against the applicants vide CR No.92/2010. 5. In the light of these submissions, it is urged that the complaint lodged against these applicants is nothing but the abuse of process of law, which was earlier treated as NC by the same police station, and considering the variance between the earlier report dated 18/02/2010 and the complaint before the Magistrate, the applicants are entitled for bail. 6. Even though the learned APP has opposed the bail application on the ground that the medical certificate of the injuries sustained by the complainant was produced when the cognizance was taken by the learned J.M.F.C., while passing the order of investigation u/s. 156(3) of The Cr.P.C., it can not be easily rulled out and the weapons used by the applicants as stated in the complaint, require to be recovered and for that purpose, custodial interrogation is required. 7. This Court is not in agreement with the submissions of learned APP on the simple grounds that apparently there is variance between the report to the police and report to the Magistrate. Secondly, there is alteration in the injury certificate, and wherever there is alteration in the said injury certificate, it do not bear the dated signature of the 4 concerned Medical Officer alongwith the stamp of the said authority, who has carried out that alternation. Considering this aspect, a case is made out to exercise the discretion u/s. 438 of The Cr.P.C. Hence order, O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Interim protection earlier granted is hereby confirmed till filing of the charge sheet. 3. Applicants may apply for regular bail after filing of the charge sheet, is so advised. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.cri.appl.1809-10