1 criapln1567-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1567 OF 2011 1] Maruti Paraji Gadakh 2] Sahebrao Maruti Gadakh 3] Manik Maruti Gadakh 4] Devidas Maruti Gadakh 5] Baban Maruti Gadakh 6] Kisan Sahebrao Gadakh .. APPLICANTS Vs 1] The State of Maha. 2] Ramesh s/o Premchand Jujare .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri K.N.Lokhande,Adv. for applicants. Shri B.J.Sonawane,APP for R-State. Shri Ram Deshpande,Adv.for R.2. ... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 22/06/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] This application is filed for anticipatory bail in Crime No.70/2011 registered in Pathardi police station, Dist.Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 504, 506 of I.P.C. ,and also for 2 criapln1567-11 offence punishable u/s 3 (i) (iv), 3 (i) (v) and 3(i) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Notice of the present proceeding was given to the complainant and his advocate Shri Deshpande was allowed to assist the A.P.P. Papers of investigation were made available by A.P.P. Some more papers were allowed to be produced in respect of the civil dispute. Heard both sides. 2] The report came to be given on 28/2/11 and the complainant Ramesh Jujare has made allegations that the incident took place due to civil dispute. In the report he has stated that on 28/2/11 at about 10.30 a.m. when he went to his field, all the applicants came there and they gave threat to him and they abused by taking name of his caste and calling him as “Mangtya”. It is his case that applicants are insisting him to sell his share in land gat no.228 for Rs.30,000/-. 3] The report shows that in the name of wife of one of the applicants, 48 Aar portion of land Gat No.228 is purchased and the dispute is in respect of the right of the parties to take water from the common well. Copy of Regular Civil Suit No.16/88 produced by the State shows that in respect of the same land suit was filed against one of the applicants, Maruti Gadakh and relief of perpetual injunction was obtained against him. It appears that after getting decree by complainant, aforesaid portion came to be purchased by wife of one of 3 criapln1567-11 the applicants. There was some litigation under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code also. 4] The aforesaid circumstances show that the real dispute between the parties is different. There is possibility that only to pressurise the applicants, allegations are made to make out a case for offence under the provisions of S.C. and S.T. [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989. in these circumstances, this Court holds that it is fit case for granting anticipatory bail. These observations are only for the purpose of this proceeding and they will not come in the way of trial Court in deciding the case. So, the application is allowed. Interim relief is confirmed. There is no need of custodial interrogation. Applicants are not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate action if there is breach of the order of the injunction. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln1567-11