1 APPLN 4539 OF 2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4539 OF 2010. Imran Mehboob Juneja and ors .. Applicants -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Momin H. Solkar, with Mr. Iqbal Y Solkar, for the Applicants. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 12th October, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicants seek anticipatory bail in crime No.135 of 2010, registered with RCB Police station Mumbai. According to applicants some buildings at Vashi Naka, Chembur were due for allotment to slum dwellers. After some persons were inducted in the building, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, issued notice to the occupants and eventually threw out the occupants in the rainy season. The occupants approached the media and it is alleged that thereafter the Municipal authorities registered a false complaint against occupants. 2. In the FIR, the names of Shakil, Swati Panchal and Sanjay Shirke and other unknown persons were mentioned. The applicants had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of 2 APPLN 4539 OF 2010.sxw Sessions. Interim bail was granted and eventually by an order dated 23rd September, 2010, application was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits first that those who have been named in the FIR have been admitted to bail. Secondly there is absolutely no role attributed to the applicants in the whole scandal. He submits that because cousin of the applicant No.1, who was also allotted tenement, had lodged complaint about her forcible eviction, the applicant has been falsely roped in. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this is not so. Investigation is still in progress. In the course of investigation, it has been found that applicants had received money from various persons for allotment of rooms and for handing over the keys according to allotment letters which applicant would be sending. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the applicant cannot be denied bail on the basis of statement of co accused, who had been arrested since such statement would not be admissible in evidence at the stage of investigation. The question of admissibility of evidence need not be gone into now. The version of co accused is a mere clue on the basis of which Investigating Officer would have to collect evidence. 5. The learned APP points out that there are statements of at least three witnesses who they claim to have paid to the applicants various sums of money for getting tenements. In view 3 APPLN 4539 OF 2010.sxw of above facts, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that some officers or employees of B.M.C, may be part of the conspiracy and their role also needs to be investigated. All the same, there is material against applicants which indicates their involvement in the offence. Therefore, applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The application is rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)