1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.901 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.901 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.901 OF 2009 Rajesh Jayantilal Patel, .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent Along with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.902 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.902 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.902 OF 2009 1. Paresh Jayantilal Patel, 2. Amit Pratap Thakkar, 3. Umesh Kshatriya, 4. Prakash Somaiya, 5. Atul Patel, .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent Mr H.H.Ponda, Senior Counsel, i/b Shri D.K.Ailawadi, for the applicants. Shri K.V.Saste, APP, for the Rstate. Shri Vijay Pradhan, Sr.Advocate, i/b J.S.Kini, for the original complainant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 08.04.2009. DATED : 08.04.2009. DATED : 08.04.2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail 2 2 2 in C.R.No.34 of 2009 of Mulund police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicants for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 395,448, 341 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicants - Rajesh and Paresh are the sons of co-accused Jayantilal. These accused, the complainant and Bakul Patel are the members of one and the same family. The prosecution case is that there was community arbitration in which an award was passed by the community Arbitrators allotting shop nos 4 and 5 to the complainant-Dhanlaxmi Kantilal Patel and the stock of plywood in the shops was given to Bakul Patel, the uncle of the present applicants-Rajesh and Paresh Patel. As per the Award, according to the complainant, she was put in possession of both the shops on 5.11.2007 and the goods in the shops were given in possession of Bakul Patel. It is alleged that on 17.11.2007, the co-accused-Jayantilal and the applicants Rajesh and Paresh forcibly dispossessed the complainant and Bakul Patel from the shops and they took charge of the shops and the stock of plywood and started selling it to the customers. On 18.11.2007 the complainant approached the police and made a 3 3 3 grievance that Jayantilal and his two sons- Rajesh and Paresh had entered the shops, owned by them, and started selling the goods therein to the customers. The police did not take cognizance of the complaint since the dispute between the two was of civil nature. The station diary entry dated 18.11.2007, perused by me, shows that both the parties in fact agreed before the police that the dispute between the two was of civil nature and they would approach to the civil court. Thereafter, on 21.11.2007 the incident of the alleged dacoity took place, in which Jayantilal and the applicants in both the applications allegedly removed the goods (plywood) worth of Rupees fourteen lakhs. Despite this, though some feeble attempts were made to approach the police, the complainant did not file any police complaint till the present FIR was lodged on 23.11.2009. During this period, it appears that the parties initiated civil disputes in the form of Arbitration Petitions filed in this court, and in those proceedings an order of status-quo has been granted. One Arbitration Petition was filed by the complainant and the other by the present applicant. It appears that in the arbitration petition filed by the complainant she also prayed for an appointment of Court Receiver. That prayer is still pending for 4 4 4 consideration. From perusal of the record, I am satisfied that even if it is accepted that there was some settlement before the community arbitrators and as per the award the applicants had agreed to hand over shop nos 4 and 5 to the complainant, there appears to be serious doubt whether those shops were actually handed over to the complainant and whether she was dispossessed on 17.11.2007. It is not the case of the complainant that after she was put in possession on 5.11.2007 of both the shops, either she or Bakul Patel purchased the stock of plywood, which was allegedly removed by Jayantilal and the applicants on 21.11.2007. It appears that the Arbitration Award is not acceptable to the accused persons and, therefore, according to Mr Ponda, they did not act on the terms of the Award and never handed over possession of the shops to the complainant. I do not wish to express any opinion on merits of the dispute between the two, which, prima facie appears to be of civil nature. However, I am satisfied that custodial interrogation in the present case would not be necessary. I am inclined to grant this application for anticipatory bail. Hence the following order. . In the event of arrest, the applicants be 5 5 5 released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to conditions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicants are directed to report the concerned police station every alternate day between 10 am and 1 pm till 24.4.2009 and thereafter on every Sunday between 10 am and 12 noon till filing of the chargesheet. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The applications are disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)