( 1 ) cra4766.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4766 OF 2010 Lakmichand s/o. Tarachand Balai .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 09.12.2010 P.C. :- 1. By this application, the applicant seeks directions under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Perused investigation papers. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged by Advocate B.V. Garad, who was appointed as Court Receiver in order to execute Execution Application No. 61 of 2006. There was a decree for eviction of house property No. 2220. J.D. - Sudhir Tambve was asked to vacate the premises as per the decree. The incident is said to have occurred on 14.07.2010. It is alleged that when ( 2 ) cra4766.10 the Court Receiver had been to the house property, J.D. - Sudhir Tambve, his brothers and other members of the family obstructed the execution proceedings. So far as the applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he and his neighbours also obstructed by instigating the J.D. 4. The only allegation against the applicant is that he instigated the J.D. by telling him that come what may, the possession shall not be handed over. 5. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the house property is delivered to the D.H. as per panchanama dated 30.11.2010. He has placed on record copy of the panchanama and report of the Bailiff. He would submit that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by the conditions, which may be imposed. 6. It, prima facie, appears that the applicant was not concerned with the execution proceedings. He was not party to the litigation. His role in the course of the incident is only that of alleged instigator to the J.D. The applicant did not personally indulge in any violence. Copy of the order rendered by the Apex Court on 06.07.2010 in S.L.P. No. 15529 of 2010 purports to show that four months’ time was allowed to J.D. - Sudhir Tambve to vacate the house property. Obviously, it prima facie appears that the execution was taken out even before such period granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court had elapsed. ( 3 ) cra4766.10 7. Considering the attending circumstances and the role attributed to the applicant, his arrest is not essential for the investigation purpose. Consequently, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) before the Arresting Officer and on condition that he shall attend the concerned Police Station on each Sunday between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. for three consecutive Sundays and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/DEC10/cra4766.10