1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.375 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.363 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Arunkumar Kesarwani .... Respondent Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for State-applicant. Mr. A.P. Mundargi i/by S.r. Mithare for respndent. Mr. J.B. Mishra for Intervener Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 9th August, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is filed by State for cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court to respondent no.1 on 24th November 2010. The present application has been filed on 9th February 2011. 2. Perusal of the application shows that all the contentions raised therein are based on the merits of the case. There is no allegation of either the breach of terms and conditions of 2 the order or abuse of the order or any fear expressed that respondent no.1 may abscond. 3. Heard the learned APP, the counsel for intervener and the learned counsel for respondent no.1. 4. Perusal of the order dated 24th November 2010 shows that the Sessions Court has by stating detailed reasons passed the order of anticipatory bail noting that the dispute in the complaint is essentially of civil nature. The accusation contained in the complaint relate to the offences punishable under Sections 465, 470 and 471 Indian Penal Code, which are bailable and the accusation in respect of offence punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code alone are non-bailable. The offence which is alleged to have been committed in the year 2003-2004, whereas the complaint in respect of it was filed in the year 2010. The Sessions Court also noted that all the documents relevant are in the custody of the complainant himself, which enables him to pursue civil as well as criminal action against respondent no.1. It is also noted that respondent no.1 is the permanent resident of Bhiwandi and as such there is no likelihood of he absconding. 3 5. The learned APP, submits across the bar that, respondent no.1 has not attended the police station as directed by the order of anticipatory bail on every Monday. The learned counsel for the intervener supports the APP s statement. Respondent no.1 ’ on the other hand has filed affidavit in reply disputing the claim of the police and contending that he had in fact attended the police station on every Monday, however, the Police have not noted his attendance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion instead of going into the veracity of the claims made by the rival parties, it would be sufficient to dispose off the application by putting stricter conditions upon respondent no.1 as regards his attendance at the police station. Hence, the application is disposed off with a direction to respondent no.1 that he shall attend Bhoiwada Police Station, Taluka Bhiwandi twice a week i.e. on Monday and on Thursday between 11 am. to 2 pm. for a period of four weeks from today. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)