1 criapln1996-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1996 OF 2011 1] Suresh s/o Laxmanrao Gawle 2] Nandu s/o Suresh Gawle 3] Sunilkumar s/o Shankarlal Ladniya 4] Hariom s/o Barumal Goyal 5] Kailash Jagannathrao Yashwante 6] Rajesh Vitthaldas Bhutia. .. APPLICANTS Vs 1] The State of Maha. 2] The Commissioner of Police Aurangabad. 3] Vijay Chandraprakash Uplanchwar .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri N.S.Ghanekar,Adv. for applicants. Shri G.R.Ingole,APP for R-State. Shri A.T.Patel,Adv.for R.3. ... CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1997 OF 2011 1] Pradeep Krishnarao Dhage .. APPLICANT Vs 1] The State of Maha. 2] The Commissioner of Police Aurangabad. 3] Vijay Chandraprakash Uplanchwar .. RESPONDENTS ... 2 criapln1996-11 Shri N.S.Ghanekar h/f Shri Joydeep Chatterji,Adv. for applicants. Shri G.R.Ingole,APP for R-State. Shri A.T.Patel,Adv.for R.3. ... CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2004 OF 2011 1] Gulam Mohammad Khan Mohammad Akbar Khan. 2] Amjad Khan Gulam Khan. .. APPLICANTS Vs 1] The State of Maha. 2] The Superintendent of Police Aurangabad. 3] Vijay Chandraprakash Uplanchwar .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri Girish Rane,Adv. for applicants. Shri G.R.Ingole,APP for R-State. Shri A.T.Patel,Adv.for R.3. ... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 21/06/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] All the three applications are filed for anticipatory bail in Crime No.1/2011 registered in Mukundwadi police station, Dist.Aurangabad for offences punishable under Sections 452, 455, 395, 342, 427, 504, 3 criapln1996-11 506, 34 and 120 B of I.P.C. The case is registered on the basis of order made in private complaint by J.M.F.C. under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The complaint was filed by one Vijay Uplanchiwar, r/o of Aurangabad. A.P.P. has produced papers of investigation. One Advocate Shri Patel appeared for original complainant and he was allowed to assist A.P.P. Both sides are heard. Both the sides were allowed to show record in respect of the dispute. 2] In the report given by Vijay Uplanchiwar, he has made allegations that in the incident dated 31/3/10, these applicants came to the disputed property with 100-150 persons. They were armed with weapons swords, iron bars and sticks. He has contended that he was in possession of the disputed property and to dispossess him, these persons demolished the standing structure and removed the waste of the standing structure after demolishing it. He has contended that his watchman Umesh Kulkarni was taken forcibly from this property in a vehicle by showing sword and threats of life were given. He has contended that at the relevant time, he was not available in the disputed property. He was present in the campus of the Court where he had filed application for anticipatory bail. 3] A.P.P. submitted that the relief of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the stolen articles need to be recovered from the applicants. On the other hand, advocate for the applicants submitted 4 criapln1996-11 that the dispute is of civil nature and even civil Court has given finding that prima faice the complainant is not in possession of the disputed property. He pointed out the record in respect of agreement etc. in support of his case. 4] Copy of agreement made by the complainant in favour of applicant from Criminal Application no.1996/11 is produced. This document is shown to be signed by complainant. In this agreement, the execution of which is not disputed, there is a mention that the complainant had obtained letter of power of attorney from the original owners, who include the applicant no.2 from Criminal Application No. 2004/11. In respect of the property according to him, power was given to him to dispose of the property under the power of attorney and so he was making agreement with applicant Suresh Gawle and others. Agreement was signed on 17/10/2008. Under this agreement, amount of Rs.9 lakhs was accepted by the complainant. There is another document dated 30/12/2008 showing that total amount of Rs.18 Lakhs was received by complainant and he had authorised applicants Suresh Gawle and others to do the level of the land and to do marking for the purpose of development of the land. There is copy of plaint of Civil Suit No.787/10 filed by complainant. The suit was filed on 6/9/2010 and he had prayed for relief of injunction to protect his possession. Copy of order dated 21/12/10 shows that the application filed for temporary injunction came to be rejected after hearing both the sides. 5 criapln1996-11 A.P.P. pointed out that subsequent to this order, the Court had again directed the parties to maintain status quo. Some photographs came to be produced today to show that there was some R.C.C. structure. In any case, in view of the second agreement of December 2008, not much can be made due to this photograph against the present applicants even at this stage. Some record was pointed out to show that applicant Suresh had given report against the present complainant and on the basis of this report, Crime No.116/10 was registered in Mukundwadi police station for offences punishable u/s. 420, 406 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. This report was given on 30/3/10. Some record is produced to show that applications were moved for anticipatory bail but they came to be rejected and ultimately, regular bail came to be granted to the original complainant. 5] In the present offences, there is allegation that the incident in question took place on 31/3/10. Private complaint was filed on 3/2/11, after about 10 months and after that, on the basis of order of J.M.F.C. on 11/3/11, the crime came to be registered. Copy of application given to Commissioner of Police dated 1/4/10 was shown today to this Court by A.P.P., in which present complainant has made similar allegations. Copy of the plaint of the suit filed by present complainant shows that at para no.7, vague allegations were made in the suit filed on 6/9/10 against the applicants and his men that they attempted to dispossess the present complainant. One date of the incident is mentioned as 6 criapln1996-11 21/8/10 but the incident dated 31/3/10 is not mentioned in the suit. These circumstances go against the present complainant even at this state. 6] It appears that the original land owner has also cancelled the letter of power of attorney executed in favour of the complainant. Allegations are made against the land owner and his father that they were also present as the men of Suresh Gawle, the purchaser at the time of incident. All these circumstances show that there is some dispute of civil nature and both the sides have tried to give different colour to the dispute. In these circumstances, this Court holds that it is fit case for granting anticipatory bail to all the applicants. So, ad- interim relief granted in favour of the applicants is confirmed and applications stand allowed. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln1996-11