1 Cri.A.2155.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2155 OF 2011 1. Subhash S/o Ramram Kadam Age : 39 Years, Occup.: Service, R/o Karanjala (Barashiv), Tq. Basmath District Hingoli. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri. M.P.Kale, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.G.R.Ingole, A.P.P. for Respondent. Shri.S.S.Rathi,Advocate for original complainant. ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2235 OF 2011 1. Vinod S/o Nagnath Ganacharya, Age : 40 Years, Occup.: Service, R/o Dargah Road, Municipal Colony, Parbhani, District Parbhani ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, and another ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.S.S.Rathi,Advocate for Applicant- original complainant. Shri.M.P.Kalei, Advocate for respondent NO.1. Shri.G.R.Ingole, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2. ... 2 Cri.A.2155.11 CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 29th JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1. First application is filed for anticipatory bail, in Crime No. 78 of 2011, registered with Nanalpeth Police Station, Parbhani, Tq. And District Parbhani, for the offence punishable under sections 448, 335, 294, 332, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Second application is filed for permitting to assist APP on behalf of the original complainant. Application No. 2235 of 2011 is allowed accordingly. Advocate Mr. S.S.Rathi is allowed to assist APP. Papers of investigation available are made available by APP. Both sides are heard. 3. Crime is registered on the basis of report given by in-charge Principal of B. Raghuath Mahavidyalya Parbhani. Papers of investigation include statements of staff of this College against whom criminal force was used. There is also statements of one lady Mrudula Mohal. Allegations are made that applicant is harassing management of this College and staff working there under the pretext that he was collecting the information of the College under Right to Information Act. Submissions made show that from the 3 Cri.A.2155.11 membership of trust the applicant came to be removed in the year 2004-05. One application is produced to show that he has applied for permission to inspect record of the College for the year 2001 to 2010. Advocate for the applicant submitted that on telephone the applicant was called to the College, at the relevant time and he was falsely implicated in this case. Report shows that allegations are made that examination of the University was going on and all staff was busy in doing supervision work. The applicant came there and gave abuses to In-charge Principal and to others in loud voice. He gave threat to commit suicide. He pushed aforesaid lady member of the staff and then he ran away. The evidence collected by the Police is sufficient to make out prima facie case for offence for which crime is registered. The defence taken by that applicant that he was called in the College, is not acceptable at this stage. There is allegation that there is interference in supervision work of University examination. Advocate for the applicant submitted that in view of the nature of offence custodial interrogation is not required. In view of the nature of offence, this Court holds that discretionary relief cannot be granted to the applicant. So application stands rejected. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No further interim relief. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK 4 Cri.A.2155.11