IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.549 OF 2009 1.Lahu Narayan Mane 2.Ankush Narayan Mane 3.Neva @ Nivrutti Hariba Mane 4.Namdeo Neva @ Nivrutti Mane ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.744 OF 2009 1.Balu @ Prataprao Dnyanoba Pawar 2. Vilas Dagdu Pawar ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri V.V. Purwant for Applicant Shri D.P. Adsule, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 2ND MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicants are aggrieved by the order of rejecting the application for anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. 3. Brief facts are as under: 4. There is a dispute between the Applicants and the Complainant's son in respect of suit property being gut No.12/2/B. A civil suit has been filed by the present Applicants against the Complainant's son and in the said suit an order of injunction was granted in favour of the Applicants restraining the Complainant's son from entering the said property. This order was passed on 18.12.2008. Thereafter, a complaint came to be lodged on 27.1.2009. It is alleged that when the complainant and his family members were working on the said property, the Applicants came there and damaged the said property. Therefore, an offence punishable under sections 325, 323, 427, 452, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered with Mohol Police Station and for the offences punishable under sections 7(1)(D), 3 (1) (5)(1) (15) of Atrocities Act. The Sessions Court refused to grant interim anticipatory bail on the ground that there was an allegation in the complaint that the son-in-law of the Complainant had sustained fracture injury and the allegation was also made that the Applicants had destroyed the house of the present Complainant. 5. In my view, prima facie case is made out for granting interim anticipatory bail. Taking into consideration the fact that the civil suit was filed by the Applicants in which the order of injunction was passed in favour of the Applicants restraining the Complainant's son from entering the said property and, thereafter, it is alleged that the Applicants had entered the said land and damaged the house. Since the order of injunction was passed in favour of the Applicants and after some days, the complaint was filed, it does appear that either the Complainant had tried to commit breach of the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court or had filed a false and bogus complaint and, therefore, the complaint also appears to have been filed under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Govindrao Watkar reported in 1995 (2) MLJ 669, on perusal of the Complaint, the ingredients of the Atrocities Act are not attracted. This Court is competent to entertain the application for anticipatory bail even though the complaint is registered under the Atrocities Act also. The Sessions Court has observed that it would be necessary to look into the documents and Say of the prosecution. Thus, not ruling out the possibility of the truthfulness of the Applicants' case, under the circumstances, therefore, the order, refusing interim anticipatory bail, in my view, was not justified. 6. The Applicants, therefore, in the event of their arrest in connection with the offences punishable under sections 325, 323, 427, 452, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Mohol Police Station and for the offences punishable under sections 7(1)(D), 3 (1)(5)(1) (15) of Atrocities Act registered vide C.R. No.34 of 2009 at Mohol Police Station, shall be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicants shall report to the concerned police station from 9th March,2009 for a period of 4 days between 11 a.m. & 5 p.m. 7. Application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.