1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2705 OF 2010 Chandrakalabai Shivaji Kale Age-30 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Jawala (Bk.) tal.Basmatnagar, Dist. Hingoli. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.S.Bora, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.P.P.More, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 23/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed this Court for her release on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with CR No.88/2010, registered in Hatta Police Station. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. After the application was moved, interim protection was granted on 16/07/2010. 2 4. Papers of investigation discloses that the alleged incident took place in agricultural field bearing gat no.72 over which the complainant alongwith his brother claimed to be in possession, while the applicant, her husband, brother in law and other members in the family also claimed that they are in possession of this land. For the incident which took place at 8.00 a.m. in the morning on that day, it appears that the complaint was lodged against the complainant in CR No.88/2010 and his brother as they had been to the field of the husband of the applicant where the alleged incident took place vide CR No.89/2010. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, one fact is clear that there is a civil dispute between the applicant party and complainant party over the possession of the land in question. This dispute is a longstanding dispute. Further there was scuffle between the 2 groups on that day in the early morning. The husband and brother in law of the applicant, who were arrested in connection with the injuries sustained by One Munjaji as well as the complainant, were already released on bail. Presence of the present applicant at the spot can not denied as it appears in the complaint lodged against her. Simple question require consideration that anticipatory bail should not be granted in favour of applicant because of her mere presence at the spot and act of assault by fist and kick blows. This is to be answered in the negative as even though her presence is marked, the role played by her is minor in nature. In view of this, this is a fit case to grant bail in favour of applicant, resultantly, 3 following is the order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Interim protection granted on 16/07/2010 is extended till filing of the charge sheet. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri-appl-2705-10