1 criap-4909.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4909 OF 2011 Popat Kantilal Palve and ors. .. applicants versus The State of Maharashtra .. respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4910 OF 2011 Rajendra Jagannath Avhad .. applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .. respondent ----- Shri B.N. Palve, Advocate, for applicants. Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent. Coram : R.Y. Ganoo, J. Date : November 30, 2011. P. C. 01. All the applicants apprehend arrest in CR No. I-430/2011, registered with Police Station, Pathardi, District Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under Sections 379, 447, 427, 143, 147 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 criap-4909.11 02. The First Information Report is filed by one Mr. Shankar Kedar, in regard to the incident which took place between the night of 9.10.2011 to 10.10.2011. According to the complainant, on the day of incident, he had visited his agricultural land bearing Gat No.309, situate at village Ghat Shiras, for starting electric motors installed on wells in the land. He, however, could not see electric motor installed on one well. Same was the position on the other well. The irrigation pipes were also damaged. At that time, he heard noise from the cotton crop in the land as " ". When his attention was attracted to said shouts, he noticed applicants in both the applications, present in the form, along with 7 to 8 persons. They were armed with a sickle and an axe and that is why he was scared and left the farm. At about 3.00 a.m. of 10.10.2011, i.e. about four hours or so after the incident, he again went to the land along with his nephew Shahdeo and brother Laxman and noted that cotton crop standing in the land, to the extent of 3/4th acre, was taken away, and 30 irrigation pipes 3 criap-4909.11 were damaged, and 10 gunny bags fed with onion were also stolen. He had also indicated to his nephew and brother about theft of two electric motors. 03. After having perused the police papers, it is abundantly clear that presence of the applicants in both the applications, in the field of complainant at village Ghat Shiras at odd hours of the night is made out. The applicants are reported to be residing at village Kolhar. Thus, their presence in somebody else's land at odd hours, without any acceptable reasons, speaks about their conduct, coupled with the fact that the property owned by the complainant is taken away from his farm. 04. Learned Advocate for the applicants had submitted that on 3.7.2011, one Ashabai Popat Palve, had lodged F.I.R. against Shankar Kedar-the complainant in the present case, and his other relatives, and that the present FIR, in respect of which anticipatory bail is sought, is filed to wreak vengeance. 4 criap-4909.11 05. In my view, if at all complainant Mr. Shankar Kedar had to wreak vengeance about the complaint filed by Ashabai in July 2011, he would not have waited for three months and filed FIR on 9.10.2011. Hence, the stand of the applicants that they are falsely implicated in aforesaid FIR, is rejected. The FIR and police papers clearly point towards all the applicants. The material produced before the court establishes link of the present applicants with the occurrence. 06. An effort was made to submit that Popat Palve, applicant No.1 in Criminal Application No.4909 of 2011, is employed as Junior Technician with M.S.E.B. and on the relevant date, he was present in his office at Alibag, District Raigad, and to prove the same, an attendance sheet is produced. However, at this stage, it would not be safe to rely on the said sheet. According to Rajendra Avhad-applicant in Criminal Application No.4910 of 2011, he is a school teacher and that should be a ground to grant him bail. However, this submission cannot be accepted. 5 criap-4909.11 07. With the aforesaid observations on the basis of the record, it is clear that presence of the applicants, at the relevant time, in complainant's farm, speaks a volume and police will, therefore, have to be given an opportunity to investigate in the aforesaid FIR, with free hand, including custodial interrogation. 08. In view of above, both the applications are rejected. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.) pnd/criap-4909.11