IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4724 OF 2009 Rahul Savata Jadhav ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ---- Mr.Siddhartha Karpe with Mr. Yashodhan Sakhare i/b. M/s. Y.K.S. Legal for Applicant Mr. S.A. Shaikh-APP for State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. ---- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant is working as a clerk in the office of the Tahasildar, Koregaon, Dist. Satara. A private complaint is filed by one Baba Babu Shedge on behalf of a company alleging that an application preferred by the company seeking no objection from the Tahasildar for development of the property was returned by the Applicant to one Somnath Nigade and Shalan Nigade along with the original documents which were tendered with the application. It is, therefore, submitted that he committed an offence punishable under sections 166, 167 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the Applicant there is a dispute between the Complainant Company and the said Nigade in respect of the land which was sought to be purchased by the Complainant from the said Nigade. According to the Applicant the said Nigade has filed his application seeking no objection from the office of the Tahasildar and had tendered his relevant documents along with the said application and thereafter he filed an application seeking return of the original documents on the ground that he wanted to seek permission from the District Rehabilitation Officer and not from the Tahasildar. Accordingly the said application which was filed by the said Nigade was returned by the Applicant. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the said application was not filed by the company but was filed by the said Nigade and on an application being filed by him for return of the said application, the applicant herein has returned the said file to him. 5. The Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Phaltan Police Station has filed an affidavit. However, it is not stated in the said affidavit that the Complainant had filed an application as alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint to the office of the Tahasildar. That being the position, prima facie, in my view the Application has made out the case for grant of anticipatory bail. It is an admitted position that there is a some dispute pending between the company and the original owner of the land Shri Somnath Nigade and others. From the complaint, it appears that the company has not become the owner of the said land in question and the said Somnath Nigade continues to be the owner and, therefore, the application was filed by him. This being the factual position, it appears that the company has filed this complaint against the Applicant herein with an ulterior motive. In any event custodial interrogation of the Applicant for these reasons, in my view, is not necessary. The Applicant is a government servant and he is working in the said office since last 10 years. 6. Under these circumstances, the Applicant in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No. 224 of 2009 registered with Phaltan Police Station , be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station once in a week for a period of four weeks and, thereafter, as and when called. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)