1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1157 OF 2010. VINOD S/O KISANJI DHOK & ONE VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P. A. Rajurkar Advocate for the applicants. Shri C. N. Adgokar, APP for respondent State. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2010. 1. The applicants have been named as accused in Crime No.333 of 2010 registered under Section 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act with Police Station Warud, District Amravati. 2. Perusal of the First Information Report discloses that the commission of offence under the povsiions of Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 2 Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been duly described. Upon reading the description in FIR, prima facie, the offence seems to have bee made out. 3. In the course of submission, the learned Advocate for the applicants has pointed out that the FIR subject matter is lodged on 4-7-2010 though the written complaint which is a typographically prepared though bears a date to be 3-7-2010 is actually filed on 4-7-2010. This complaint is counter productive of complaint lodged by the present applicant to the police in relation to the offence committed by the said complainant Sou. Kavita Subhash Umak. 4. Learned APP states on enquiry by Court that the police have also taken action on the complaint filed by the present applicants and have taken preventive action. 5. It is thus, clear that though technically the offence is described in the FIR in Crime No.333 of 2010, it is counter productive of complaint lodged by the present applicant which is prior in time, and its genuineness is in doubt. The applicants have, therefore, made out a case that 3 prima facie, the applicants may not be involved in the commission of offence complained of. 6. The applicants are therefore, entitled to protection sought for. 7. In the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and solvent surety in a sum of Rs.2000/- each. Judge //mule//