1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.582 OF 2010 1. Abdul Salim S/o.Abdul Alim, Age-57 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Patrud, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist. Beed, 2. Abdul Fahim S/o.Abdul Alim, Age-35 years, Occu-Teacher, R/o.Parli-Baijnath, Dist. Beed. 3. Abdul Fakim S/o.Abdul Alim, Age-50 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Patrud, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist. Beed 4. Sayad Juber S/o.Sayad Jalal, Age-65 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Patrud, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist. Beed 5. Momin Nazmoddin S/o.Momin Rafiq, Age-70 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Patrud, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 6. Abdul Mohid S/o.Abdul Salim, Age-27 years, Occu-Student, R/o.Roshangate, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 7. Abdul Soheb S/o. Abdul Salim, Age-19 years, Occu-Student, R/o.Roshangate, Aurangabad, APPLICANTS 2 VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. Superintendent of Police, Beed, Dist. Beed RESPONDENTS Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicants. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 24/02/2010 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.2/2010, registered in Dindrud Police Station. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, initially the court has to take judicial note of the fact that the field Gat No.21, where the alleged incident took place, civil litigation is going on about the possession of the said property since the year 1992. As the applicants herein have filed civil suit no.126/1992, in the court of Civil Judge, J.D.Majalgaon, in respect of the same property, for simplicitor injunction, wherein during the pendancy of the suit, 3 interim injunction was granted in favour of these applicants which remain intact till the Hon'ble High Court and running against the defendants in that suit, who is complainant, on whose complaint CR No.2/2010 came to be registered. During the course of submissions across the bar, I was taken through the exchequer history of this civil litigation between these parties. Before the offence came to be registered about the alleged incident dated 02/01/2010, on the basis of which, the present offence came to be registered, allegedly taken place in Gat No.21, about the same incident, complaint was also lodged by the present applicants in the same police station, but initially no action was taken by the police, but these applicants were referred for medical treatment. At that time, it appears that some private complaint was lodged, in which the complainants were released on bail. While granting bail to the complainants, who have lodged the complaint, on the basis of which CR NO.2/2010 was registered, were prohibited to enter in the disputed landed property, where the alleged incident took place on 02/01/2010. Considering these aspects, when the crop was raised in the land, and it is the allegation of the complainant that when he had went to that field, where these applicants were removing the cotton crops, the alleged incident occurred, can not be believed as a gospel truth. Considering this aspect, this is a clear case of false implication. A case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail under the discretionary powers of this Court. Hence order - 4 O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Interim protection granted vide order dated 10/2/2010 is hereby confirmed till filing of the charge sheet. 3. Applicants to co-operate with the investigation agency. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri-appl-582-10