..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.867 OF 2008 Mr.Anwar Badshah Abdul Sattar. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Prakash Naik, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.S.H.Joshi, Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 to 10. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, for Respondent No.1-State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-orig.complainant, the learned Advocate for the respondents-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents-orig.accused by order dated 3.10.2007. The said case is mainly under Sections 406, 420, 468 etc. IPC. It is the case of the applicant that he had entered into an agreement with the respondents accused and there is violation of the said agreement. As per the agreement, two flats and one shop was to be given to the applicant. ..(2).. It is pertinent to note that the brother of the applicant who is one of the parties in the development agreement has accepted compliance of the development agreement and has taken possession of the flats from the builder i.e. respondent no.2. It appears that there is some dispute between the applicant and his brother also and it is his case that respondent no.2 in connivance with his brother has committed the above offences. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all the material and has thereafter reached the conclusion that the complainant has tried to convert civil dispute into criminal case. As the offence pertains to violation of the agreement, the observations of the learned Sessions Judge appears to be correct. Looking to the facts of the case, the custody of the respondents would not have been necessary. Hence, no case is made out for cancellation of bail on merits. 3. Thereafter, Mr.Naik submitted that the respondents-orig.accused have threatened the complainant and in respect of the said threats N.C. has been lodged by him at Palghar police station. The said incident has taken place on 25.7.2007. Anticipatory bail was granted to the respondents on ..(3).. 3.10.2007 i.e. after the incident of giving threats. Thereafter no incident of giving of threats by any of the accused persons has been reported by the complainant. It is not the prosecution case that the respondents-orig.accused did not cooperate with the investigation or their custody is required. It is also not their case that the respondents-orig.accused are likely to abscond and will not be available for trial. 4. Looking to all the above facts, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for cancellation of bail. Hence, application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)