{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2794 OF 2010 Bhimaji Annaji Alekar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. N.V.Gaware, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2 nd August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrested in connection with CR No.225/2010 registered with Shrigonda police station for an offence punishable u/s 195 (A) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation including the complaint. 3. This offence is registered on the complaint of Suman Khamkar, resident of Pimpalgaon. It appears that on 23.03.2010 her husband was killed / murdered and hence a compliant at CR No.95/2010 is registered. The complainant Suman is not the {2} complainant in CR No.95/2010. The applicant is the resident of Shrigonda. It is alleged that on 03.06.2010 when the complainant had been to her parents house at Adhalgaon, at about 1.00 p.m. the applicant and one Trimbak approached her and offered Rs. 1,50,000/- to changer her version, recorded in connection with CR No.95/2010 and told her to implicate her own nephews. 4. Learned counsel for applicant has urged that the alleged incident has occurred at Adhalgaon on 03.06.2010 and the complaint is lodged on 25.06.2010 i.e. after about 22 days for which no explanation is offered in the complaint. Secondly, the complainant Suman is not the complainant in CR No.95/2010 nor she is an eye witness and not even she has stated that she had seen something, which the applicants now threatened her to change the same by offering money and thirdly, neither the applicant nor his close relatives are implicated as accused in CR No.95/2010 and hence there is no question for the applicant to ask the witness to change her version. Admittedly, the complaint in CR No.95/2010 does not show name of the applicant or his close relatives. The person by name Trimbak Hirve was arrested and later on released on bail. It is contended that as the applicant is not concerned with either of the offences and hence prayed to release him on aticipatory bail. 5. Learned APP opposed the bail application on the ground that the allegations against the applicant are serious in {3} nature that too causing of interference in criminal proceedings. 6. Complaint as well as statements of the complainant Suman recorded in connection with CR No.95/2010 are annexed with the present application. These two statements clearly demonstrate that they do not implicate any role against the applicant or his close relatives. Nor the complainant has stated that she has witnessed anything. Apart from it, in CR No.95/2010, charge sheet has already been filed on 07.06.2010 whereas the alleged incident has taken place on 03.06.2010. Thus, considering the overall effect of these aspects it appears that the present complaint is filed with some ulterior motive. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with CR No.225/2010 registered with Shrigonda police station, he be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. This protection is granted till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant is directed to cooperate the investigating agency. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2794-10