1 ABA-57.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.57 OF 2011 Vinod Balbhim Patil .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Sandeep Salunke i/b J.D. Mane for the Applicant. Ms A.A. Mane, APP, for the State. Shri I.M. Khairdi for the Intervener. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JANUARY 27, 2011 P.C: 1. This is indeed a curious case where the applicant, who is an ex-sarpanch of the village, seeks anticipatory bail in the offence punishable under Section 436 of the IPC. The allegation is that on 5-12-2010 the applicant had gone to the house of the first informant and demanded liquor. The first informant allegedly told the applicant that he had already consumed lot of liquor and therefore he should not ask for any further drinks whereupon the applicant allegedly started giving filthy abuses and stated that he would set the first informant's house on fire. The first informant 2 ABA-57.11 states that she went to the house of the Patil, that is presumably the applicant himself and when she returned after an hour, she found her house on fire when her husband was very much present at home. His statement has not yet been recorded by the I.O., as stated by the learned APP, on instructions from PSI P.P. Lokhande, who is himself the I.O. and is present in the Court. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that since the villagers wanted liquor vending in the village to come to an end, the liquor vendors had started a series of allegations against the villagers of similar type and submitted that similar report about an incident dated 14-11-2010 was made by one Abhijit Kale, who belong to the same community as the first informant in the present case, against three or four persons and in that case the learned Additional Sessions Judge has admitted the accused persons to anticipatory bail. The incident of demand of liquor took place in broad-day light at 2:30 p.m.. The first informant claims to have gone to inform the applicant's family members and returned within an hour and yet states that at about 7:30 p.m. the house was set on fire. The 3 ABA-57.11 learned APP states that the applicant is an influential person and therefore nobody is coming forward to give a statement. This is hard to accept because the I.O. is yet to record the statement of the first informant's husband. In view of this, the application is allowed. In the event of his arrest the applicant be released on bail in C.R. No.473 of 2010 of Mohol Police Station, District Solapur on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.50,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall report at the police station concerned on 31-1-2011 at 10:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter on every Monday and Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. till the charge-sheet or the final report is filed. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 3. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation 4 ABA-57.11 that if charge-sheeted, the applicant may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 4. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)