* 1 * Cri.Appl-3878/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLCATION NO. 3878 OF 2010 Appasaheb Sukhdev Soudagar ....... Applicant : V E R S U S : State of Maharashtra (through Umadi Police Station, District-Sangli) ........ Respondent/ Orig.Complainant ******* Mr. S.S. Patwardhan and Mr. A.M. Savagare, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, APP for State-respondent. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The applicant apprehends his arrest in C.R. No.47 of 2010 registered with Umadi Police Station, District-Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 395,143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 341, 323 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 25 of Arms Act. The applicant * 2 * Cri.Appl-3878/2010 is a teacher. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that, there was a dispute between the complainant and accused no.1 Sidraya over property bearing C.T. Survey No.9 situate at Village-Jadarboblad. According to the complainant on 5th August, 2010 when he was passing by the disputed property in a vehicle, the applicant and other unknown persons stopped his vehicle and assaulted him. They caused damage to his vehicle and snatched away Rs.35,000/- from him. It is next alleged that the applicant herein attacked him with a sword. This complaint was registered on 6th August, 2010 at about 1.15 a.m. About half an hour prior to that i.e. at 12.45 a.m., cousin brother of the applicant, one Sidraya had filed complaint against the complainant and several others being C.R. No.46 of 2010 alleging that these persons had come to the tin shed near the house of Sidraya and tried to demolish the same. When Sidraya and his relatives attempted to save the shed from demolition as it was protected by a court s order, they were threatened with revolver and ’ also assaulted. Thus, this is a case of cross-complaints between two groups of people with a dispute over a property. The * 3 * Cri.Appl-3878/2010 applicant s name is not mentioned anywhere in the complaint filed ’ by Sidraya. Therefore, as per the complaint of Sidraya the applicant was not present at site at the time of the incident. He is however roped in the second complaint filed. It is the case of the applicant, that he is the only educated member in the family and is the only person who has been instructing the advocate in the civil proceedings filed. According to the applicant, he has been deliberately involved in the second complaint, so that he will not be available for looking after the civil proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations made in the two complaints and pendency of the civil proceedings, in my opinion, this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Further, perusal of the police papers shows that the sword which was allegedly used by the applicant to assault the complainant, has been recovered by the police not at his instance but at the instance of one Revappa from the house of Revappa. Hence, the application is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the applicant in C.R. No. 47 of 2010 registered with Umadi Police Station, District-Sangli, he be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) with * 4 * Cri.Appl-3878/2010 one surety in the like amount. The applicant is directed to attend Umadi Police Station, District-Sangli once a week on Sunday for a period of 3 weeks between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]