IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.3189 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3189 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3189 OF 2008 1. Abdul Samad Mohd Hasan Siddique, 2. Gopal Girdhar Pandey, Applicants Vs State of Maharashtra, Respondent. Mr H.H.Ponda with Mr Vinod Wagh, for the applicants. Mr K.V.Saste, APP for the respondent. WITH CRI.APPLICATION NO.3208 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3208 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3208 OF 2008 Maustaqeen Ahmede Shaikh, Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra, Respondent Mr Mahesh Pahane, for the applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, APP for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 18/10/2008 DATE : 18/10/2008 DATE : 18/10/2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3189 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3189 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3189 OF 2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Ponda, learned counsel for the applicants in criminal application no.3189/08, Mr Pahane,learned counsel for the applicant in criminal application no.3208/08 and Mr Saste, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.(FIR) No. 228 of 2008 of Byculla police station, Mumbai. The said crime has been registered against the applicants and one another for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 454, 341,452,504 read with 34 of IPC. It is on the allegations that the accused persons forcibly dispossessed the complainant from a restaurant and bar under the name and style of Faizabadi Restaurant and Bar, at shop nos 7 and 8, 254/247, Ganga Niwas Building, Mazgaon, Mumbai on 22.8.2008. The applicants also had allegedly given threats to the complainant of his life. The complainant claims possession of the said restaurant on the basis of the conducting agreement which was executed on 1.1.2007, by which the licence was granted for eleven months commencing from 1.3.2007. It appears that after expiry of the period of the said agreement got over, it was not renewed for further period. Moreover, it appears that the agreement was executed by applicant no.1, when admittedly the said premises, does not stand in the name of applicant no.1. The premises is owned by the mother of applicant no.1 and it seems that she did not execute any such agreement in favour of the complainant. This is all recorded by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, in its judgment dated 19.9.2008 rendered in Notice of Motion Exhibit-2 in S.C.Suit No.1799 of 2008. That motion was taken out by the complainant, in his suit, seeking temporary injunction restraining applicant no.1 from dispossessing him from the suit premises, that is , the aforesaid restaurant. The City Civil Court, by reasoned order, dismissed the said motion holding that the defendant could not prove his possession over the suit property. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed. The Civil Court, however, shall decide the civil proceedings on merits in accordance with law and without being influenced by this order. The police are also allowed to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I pass the following order. 3. In the event of arrest, both applicants - Abdul Samad Mohd Hasan Siddique and Gopal Girdhar Pandey, to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each, with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to conditions that the applicants shall report to the concerned police station every alternate day till 7.11.2008 between 10 and 12 noon and thereafter on every alternate Saturday between 10 am and 11 am for a period of 90 days from the date of their formal arrest or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. CRI.APPLICATION NO.3208 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3208 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3208 OF 2008 4. The applicant, in this application, is a friend of applicant no.1 in Criminal Application No.3189 of 2008. He allegedly helped the other accused in dispossessing the complainant from the said premises by use of force and giving threats to the complainant. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid order in Criminal Application No.3189 of 2008, this application is also allowed in the following terms. 5. In the event of arrest, applicant Maustaqeen Ahmede Shaikh, to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to conditions that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station every alternate day between 10 and 12 noon and thereafter on every alternate Saturday between 10 am and 11 am for a period of 90 days from the date of his formal arrest or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)