1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1931 OF 2010 Annasaheb Raosaheb Labade and another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.K.S.Patil, learned APP for respondent State Mr.S.S.Chaudhary, learned counsel for original complainant. CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 07/06/2010 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.40/2010, registered in Paithan Police Station. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, followed by the submissions of learned APP and learned counsel for original complainant. 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Bansod, who is working as Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Paithan about the alleged incident, which 2 took place on 08/04/2010. On bare perusal of the contents of the complaint, it reveals that the complaint to be read in two parts, as one incident took place at about 11.30 a.m. in the office of the complainant, Block Development Officer, and the second part of the incident took place while the meeting was in progress. It is alleged that these applicants have approached the complainant in his office at around 11.30 a.m. and at that time, tried to demand Rs.20,000/- from him on the allegation that he has prepared some false report about the proceedings of the earlier meeting and if he declined, they will make the publication of that false report to the knowledge of public at large. As the complainant declined to pay the amount, he was threatened by the applicants, as to how he will perform his duties in his office. So far as the second part of allegation in the complaint is concerned, the second incident occurred in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti when it was in progress under the Chairmanship of one Appasaheb Khandagale, and at that time, the complainant was manhandled by these two persons and at that time he was rescued by the Chairman Appasaheb Khandagale and Office Supdt. Shri.Gauri. On that basis, the said offence came to be registered. According to learned counsel appearing for the applicants, when the complainant came to know about the complaints lodged against the complainant to the superior officers about his conduct in performing the duties, to malign the image of these applicants, who were also the members of Panchayat Samiti since last 3 years, they are falsely implicated in this case. If they will put under arrest, then they will be dis-qualified to be the member of 3 the Panchayat Samiti. In the premise, to avoid further complications, they have prayed for anticipatory bail. 4. According to learned APP, during the investigation till carried out, the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer clearly indicate that the complainant was man-handled by these two applicants. In the premise, even though there are some allegations, which may be of serious nature against the complainant, these applicants are not suppose to take the Law in their hand and to man-handle the public servant, and if such act to be condoned by granting the anticipatory bail, they it will be nothing but to protect such illegal activities of the elected members of Panchayat Samiti. 5. According to learned counsel appearing for original complainant, what are the complaints lodged against the complainant by these applicants, he had no knowledge and if the copy of the said complaints might have provided to him, he might have explain about the allegations therein. 6. It is not under dispute that the meeting was held in the office of Panchayat Samiti on 08/04/2010, in which these two applicants were present. Now the only question require consideration is that so far as the first part in the complaint is concerned, there is no independent witness about the alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- to shield the otherwise acts of the complainant, but so far as the second part which took place during the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti, 4 which is in progress about man-handling of the complainant, the allegations against these two applicants are supported by the statement of Chairman Appasaheb Khandagale as well as the Office Supdt. The other statements recorded during the investigation till carried out indicate that while the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti was in progress, there was commotion during that meeting and the complainant was man-handled at the hands of these two applicants. Even if, it is assumed that there are serious allegations about the activities and the duties performed by the complainant, even then these applicants are not supposed to take the Law in their hand and to man-handle the public servant while discharging his duties. This allegation against these applicants is supported by the statement of Appasaheb and other public servants who were present during the meeting. Considering the overall material collected during the investigation till carried out and the presence of these applicants is not under dispute, as they had also participated in the said meeting, it can not be said that the complaint lodged against them is totally a false complaint. In the premise, this is not a fit case where the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail, particularly when the public servant was attacked in the meeting of Panchayat Samiti. Application sans any merit, hence stands dismissed. Interim protection earlier granted stands vacated. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.1931-10