1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.848 OF 2011 sns 1 Shri Gangadhar Annapa Bhosale 2 Shri Laxman Satish Pujari 3 Shri Rameshwar D. Rathod 4 Shri Ishwar Ramlal Pardeshi ..Applicants. v/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr. M.S.Karnik, adv. for the Applicants. Ms G.P.Mulekar, APP for the State. Mr. S.A.Malkani, adv. for the original complainant/Intervener. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 13th October, 2011 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP. The learned counsel for the original complainant is permitted to intervene. 2 Applicants seek anticipatory bail in crime no.138 of 2011 registered at Vithalwadi Police Station under Section 341, 384, 387 , 504 r/w section 34 IPC. 3 As per the F.I.R lodged on 29.9.2011 by one Rekha M. Gaba, she and her husband are running business of a cable operator and had given connection to several people in that area. According to the F.I.R., in the month of February, 2011, the applicant no.1 Gangadhar Bhosale and 2 his three companions, who are the applicant nos.2 to 4, had threatened the husband of the complainant that if he wanted to carry on cable business, he will have to pay them Rs.5,000/- per month. At that time, no report was lodged. On 26.4.2011 at about 4.40 p.m. the accused persons restrained the complainant from proceeding by road and again made a demand of Rs. 5,000/- per month under threats. According to the applicants, they are also in the cable business and due to their flourishing business, rivalry has arose and the complainant has lodged false report against them. The learned APP on instructions makes a statement that the applicants have started their cable connection business by taking illegal connections from the apparatus installed by the other cable operators including the complainant. It is contended that the such illegal connection is also taken by them from one Konark Cable Network. 4 There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the F.I.R. was lodged more than 5 months after the incident, which had taken place on 26.4.2011. The learned APP pointed out that the complainant had submitted written report on 2.5.2011 to different police officers. It appears that no action was taken on the basis of that report. The F.I.R. lodged on 29.9.2011 disclosed the single incident of 26.4.2011 about the threats and demands. It does not disclose that after that there was any threat or demand nor it shows that the complainant or her husband was assaulted at any time. 3 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, custodial interrogation will not be necessary. 5 In view of the above circumstances, in the event of arrest in crime no.138 of 2011, the applicants be released on their executing PR of Rs.15,000/- each with surety in the like amount with the condition that they shall make themselves available to the police as and when required for the purpose of investigation and shall also attend the police station on every Sunday between 4 to 6 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet. 6 Application stands disposed off. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)