IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3962 OF 2009 Niranjan Narayansingh Pardeshi ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ---- Shri A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Shri Shonak Mehta for Applicant Shri Girish B. Badiger for Complainant Shri J.P. Khorge-APP for State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. ---- 1. The Applicant in Criminal Application No. 3962 of 2009 apprehends arrest in connection with a complaint which is filed by the Complainant on 23.4.2008 with Kothrud Police Station and a private complaint filed by him dated 28.4.2008 with the J.M.F.C. , Pune in which an order has been passed by the Learned Magistrate under section 156 (3) on 23rd June, 2008. The said complaint has been filed for the offences punishable under sections 341, 380, 451, 454, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is alleged that the Complainant was in possession of the premises admeasuring 10 ft. and the Applicant is the owner of the premises. It is further alleged that the Applicant dispossessed the Complainant and removed his computer, furniture and other equipments which were lying in the premises worth Rs.2,20,000/-. A suit also has been filed by the Applicant under the Specific Relief Act in the Civil Court and it is pending. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that in fact, it is the case of the Applicant that the Complainant had handed over the premises to the Applicant and since 2003 the Complainant was not in possession of the said premises. In support of that, he has invited my attention to the electricity bill which shows that the electricity was disconnected since 2003. He submitted that almost after the period of 1 1/2 years, the police is now trying to arrest the Applicant, which is essentially a civil dispute between the parties. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has vehemently urged that the Applicant and others had not only dispossessed him forcibly but also taken away his equipments worth Rs.2,20,000/-. He submitted that this fact was witnessed by number of witnesses. He also filed a complaint with the police. He submitted that, therefore, the recovery of the said equipments which have been stolen by the Applicant is required. 5. After having heard by the Counsel for the Applicant, Complainant and the learned APP for the State, I am of the view that essentially this dispute appears to be a civil dispute. The Applicant admittedly is the owner. The electricity connection appears to have been disconnected in the year 2003 itself. No material has been placed on record to show that the Complainant was the owner of these articles which were allegedly lying in the said premises. Further the incident in question took place on 23.4.2008. A private complaint was filed in June, 2008 and after lapse of 1 1/2 years, now the Applicant is sought to be arrested by the police to pressurize the owner of the premises. Therefore, under these circumstances, prima facie, case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. The Applicant, in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No. 5 of 2008 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 380, 451, 454, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station for a period of two days from 16th November, 2009 between 11.00 a.m. & 1.00 p.m. and, thereafter, as and when called. 7. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)