1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4043 OF 2007 Chandrakant Rama Chaudhari & ors. .. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.Ajay S. Patil for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 25th January 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with crime registered with Murbad police station under C.R.No. 3 of 2007 punishabnle u/s.406, 420, 504 r/w sec.34 of the IPC. The previous application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicants before the Sessions Court has been rejected by the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, 2 Kalyan by an order dated 10th December 2007. Hence, the applicants have approached this court for bail. 3. According to the complainant Rahul Vasant Gargatte, the applicants agreed to sell their land bearing Survey No. 53, admeasuring about 6 acres for a consideration of Rs.9,90,000/- and accepted the earnest money of Rs.2,81,000/-. According to the complainant thereafter the respondents avoided to execute the sale deed though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The complainant filed the FIR alleging that the applicants have avoided to executed the sale deed in his favour contract and has wrongly executed the subsequent agreement in favour of a third person. Initially the complaint was filed before the Magistrate who sent the matter for investigation to the police u/s.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Perusal of the FIR and statements of witnesss recorded by the police, copies of which have been produced for my inspection clearly disclose that there is ia civil dispute between the parties. Though the applicants initially agreed to sell the property, according to them the complainant committed breach of the contract and did not pay the balance consideration and therefore they y terminating his 3 agreement agreed to sell the property to a third person. 5. Considering the nature of the dispute and also considering the fact that there appears to be civil dispute between the parties. In my view, presence of the applicants is not necessary for the purpose of custodial investigation. In the circumstances the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail. 6. In the event of arrest of any of the applicants in connection with the offence mentioned above, each of them shall be released on bail on personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties each of the aggregate amount of Rs.20,000/- subject to the condition that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence and shall attend the concerned police station if summoned by the police for interrogation/ investigatoin. This order shall come to an end on charge-sheet being filed whereupon the applicants may, if they so desire apply to the appropriate court for regular bail. (D.G. KARNIK, J)