(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 2121 of 2011 1. Mahesh s/o. Manohar Lad, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. 16, Shantiniketan Colony, Aurangabad. 2. Laxmibai Mangilal Chauhan, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. 3. Ankush s/o. Rambhau Mandlik, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. .. Applicants. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Prafulla s/o. Mulchand Bramhecha, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Plot No. 25, Shanti Niketan Colony, Aurangabad, Taluka & District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. D.S. Bharuka, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.1. Mr. H.F. Pawar, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. I-111/11, registered with Police Station, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that offence has been registered against the applicants on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent no. 2 herein, namely, Prafulla s/o. Mulchand Bramhecha, on 18-3-2011, against the applicants herein. Thereafter, the applicants approached the learned Sessions Court and preferred (3) an application seeking anticipatory bail, and ad interim protection was granted therein, but subsequently, the said application came to be rejected on 3rd May 2011. Thereafter, applicants approached this Court for anticipatory bail and ad interim relief was granted in favour of the applicants during Vacation on 13th May 2011, and the same is effective till today. 4. It is alleged in the complaint lodged by the complainant, that the applicants had forcibly entered in the house of the complainant and Kishor Lahot, and assaulted them and thereby, they tried to remove the household articles from the house and threatened them with dire consequences. They also took forcible possession of the house of Kishor Lahot. The complaint also discloses that the applicant no.1 Mahesh was earlier residing in the premises in question, and thereafter he vacated the said premises, and therefore, the said premises was let out to Mr. Kishor s/o. Paju Lahot. The lease and license agreement dated 1st April 2010, executed between Mr. Pradeep s/o. Panditrao Bhosikar and Mr. Kishor s/o. Paju Lahot, was shown during the course of arguments, which discloses that the permission in question was given on license basis for 11 months commencing from 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011. 5. On this background, it is the contention of the (4) applicants, that they are in possession and they have not vacated the premises in question. To support the said contention, learned Adv. Mr. D.S. Bharuka, for the applicants, submitted that the applicants have deposited even tax of the said premises and applicants have been paying telephone bill in respect of the telephone in the said premises. 6. The investigation papers are made available by the learned APP, and on perusal of the investigation papers, and the contents of the complaint, and considering the rival submissions, it is material to note that the applicants have not produced any documentary proof regarding their legal title and possession over the disputed premises. Moreover, the concerned Society also has lodged complaint against the applicants on 12th March 2011. Moreover, there are direct allegations against the applicants in the complaint lodged by the complainant, and therefore, apparently, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicants in the FIR. 7. Besides, it is also submitted that the Scorpio vehicle which has been referred in the complaint, is yet to be recovered. Significantly, it is pointed out that the registration number of said Scorpio vehicle, which was allegedly used by the applicants at the time of commission of the offence, bearing No. (5) MH-20/AA-2121, belongs to some other Indica vehicle pertains to Tours & Travels and said registration number was falsely used by the applicants at the time of commission of the offence. 8. Having comprehensive view of the matter, it is apparent that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for further progress in the investigation in constructive manner, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 9. In the result, present Criminal Application stands dismissed, and ad interim relief granted to the applicants, by order of this Court dated 13-5-2011, stands vacated. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka2121