1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4176 OF 2006 Murarilal Kotia .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Nitin Pradhan with Ms.Shubhada Khot for applicant Mr.M.H.Mhambre, A.P.P. for State Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Kumar Tolani for original complainant. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13th December 2006. P.C. . This is an application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with C.RNo.177 of 2006. 2. The statement of Mr.Pradhan is that applicants in Criminal Application No.3694 of 2 2006 are the developers where the present applicants are owners of immovable property, whereupon the development has taken place, units constructed and sale of which is the subject matter of dispute. He states that originally the applicants were not apprehending arrest because neither the complainant nor anybody else have any grievance as far as owners are concerned. No specific role was assigned to the owners in the disputes that have arisen pursuant to the development. However, on account of certain statements made before this Court and further developments the applicants are also apprehending arrest in connection with subject C.R. 3. Mr.Pradhan states that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of applicants in all matters including civil proceedings, he has instructions to state that Unit No.B-202 in the subject property i.e. Plot No.2 C.T.S.No.844/3, Shah Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri 3 (West), Mumbai 400 053, regarding which there are no third party rights intervening and there is an agreement between the developer and the original complainant in Criminal Application No.3694 of 2006, can be handed over to the complainant and Mrs.Namrata and Mrs.Manisha Kohli. Mr.Pradhan states that with regard to this unit, there is already an agreement with the developer and that is how, this without prejudice statement has been made. 4. The developer who has been appearing through Mr.Ponda, the original complainant, learned A.P.P. have no objection if at this stage, this unit i.e. Unit No.B-202 is handed over to the aforesaid persons. The said unit i.e. Unit No.B-202 is being handed over without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties. The applicants - original owners, however, contend that the original complainant so also Mrs.Namrata and Mrs.Manisha Kohli shall give 4 an undertaking to this Court that they would, upon possession being handed over to them, not alienate, encumber, part with possession or create third party rights of any nature whatsoever in respect of this Unit i.e. B-202 and that they would hand over this unit to such parties who are ultimately held to be entitled to the same by a competent Civil Court. That the said persons would pay the monthly outgoings and other maintainance charges in respect of this Unit after taking possession but shall not be called upon to pay anything other than the same. The undertaking, therefore, should cover this aspect as well. Learned A.P.P. in the light of this development makes a statement that the prosecution shall give 72 hours prior notice to Murarilal R. Kotia and Madanmohan M. Kotia in case they decide to proceed and arrest them in connection with C.R.No.177 of 2006. 5. In the light of the above statements and 5 further development recorded above, Mr.Pradhan does not press this anticipatory application. It is accordingly, disposed of with liberty to file fresh application as and when occasion arises. All contentions of both sides are expressly kept open in that behalf. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)