{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 305 OF 2010 1. Manoj s/o Manikrao Narkhede Age-38 years, Occ-Business 2. Raju s/o Ramdas Mahajan, Age-45 years, Occ-Business Both R/o 1/90, Krishnundu, Gandhi Nagar, Jalgaon APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through District Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.492 OF 2010 Sau. Hemlata Rajiv Mahajan, Age-39 years, Occ-Business & Household R/o Sai Prabha Apartment, Ganesh Colony, Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through District Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon RESPONDENT ....... Mr. G.V.Wani, Advocate for applicants Mr. B.J.Sonawane, APP for respondent State ....... {2} [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 25th February 2010 PER COURT: 1. Both these applications are filed by the applicants praying to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.3/2010 registered with Zilla Peth Police station, Jalgaon. 2. It appears that interim protection is granted to the applicants on 22.01.2010 and 10.02.2010, respectively. 3. The applicants are the partners of a firm M/s Masai Construction. The complaint is lodged by the owner of the property, Sulbha Ingale and on the basis of the same the offence has been registered. It is alleged that the property, Block No.1, situated at Gat No.90, Krisnendu, Gandhi Nagar, Jalgaon was initially given on live and license basis by the complainant to her nephew Sandeep Ingale from 17.11.2005 to 30.11.2008. Thereafter, the same was extended by one year and ultimately on 30.11.2009 the same came to be terminated. It is further alleged that during the visit of the complainant, to the said premises, somewhere in the year 2008, she came to know that the applicants have started their office under the name and style as M/s Masai Constructions, illegally. It is further alleged that to run the said business, the applicant Manoj has, allegedly, submitted certain false documents {3} before the Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon on 17.09.2005. 4. Perusal of the documents on record shows that before the complaint is lodged, a Miscellaneous civil application was filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon bearing No. 389/2009 by the applicant Manoj, for restoration of electricity supply, which was disconnected at the behest of the present complainant, The complainant was also a party to the said civil litigation. Before filing of the civil litigation, an application was filed on behalf of the applicants before the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon on 06.12.2009 alleging interference in the possession of the applicants in the said property by the complainant, as they claimed to be the tenants of the same since last 10 years. Though the said litigation is earlier in point of time, yet finds no reference in the complaint. 5. By pointing out all the emerging facts from the complaint so also non disclosure of the civil dispute between the parties, in the complaint, it is urged that the complaint is nothing but pressurize tactics to get the premises vacated. It is also contended that now the premises has been vacated by the applicants and an agreement has been entered into on 01.02.2010. It is therefore, urged that, considering the pending civil dispute between the parties, no custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary in connection with the present offence and hence it is requested to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. {4} 6. According to learned APP, though there is no relation between the complainant and applicants of land lady and tenant, the applicants have allegedly executed false documents in respect of the said property and hence their custodial interrogation is essential. 7. Considering the rival submissions, it requires to take into consideration that before filing of the complaint, civil dispute was pending and certain interim orders, in respect of reconnection of electricity supply, were passed by the civil court, the said fact is suppressed by the complainant at the time of filing complaint. Another aspect, which requires consideration is that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, which was pending, however, now withdrawn, as the parties have settled the same. If it is so, the applicants are not required for custodial interrogation. In the premises, both the applications deserve to be allowed. 8. In the result, the both the applications are allowed. Interim protection granted on 22.01.2010 and 10.02.2010, is hereby confirmed and the same to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet, if nay. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln305-492-10