1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3795 OF 2007 Gyaneshwar K. Upadhaya .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.A.P. Mundargi i/b Ayaz Khan & Nilobar for the applicant. Mr.U.V. Nikam APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 19th December 2007 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is arrested in connection with the crime registered under C.R. No.118 of 2007 with Kashimira police station for the alleged offences punishable under section 467, 468, 471 r/w sec.34 of the IPC and under section 3(4)(5) and (10) of 2 Scheduled caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The facts in brief are that one Mr.Yeshwan K. Gokhale who claims to be belonging to Adivasi Halva class filed a FIR with the concerned police station on 22nd June 2007 against the applicant. In the complaint, he alleged that he is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.83, Hissa No.1 to the extent of 500 sq.m. and he has constructed a shed thereon in the year 2000. The complainant let out a part of the shed to the applicant in the year 2004 for a period of 11 months. However, the applicant did not return the possession after the expiry of the period of lease and disputes are going between complainant and applicant. According to the complainant, applicant has prepared certain false documents to claim right in the said shed and on that count, the complainant has lodged first complaint with the police on 10th May 2007. The applicant was called by the police in connection with the investigation of that complaint. Being enraged by the said complaint the applicant along with his friend abused the complainant on 14th May 2007 using abuses referable to his caste. He therefore filed the present FIR against the applicant. 3 4. I have perused the copy of the FIR and statement of the complainant and statements of witnesses. Therefrom it clearly appears that there is a civil dispute between the parties. Mr.Mundargi learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to coerce the petitioner for a settlement of a civil dispute that a false complaint has been filed. 5. At this stage, it is not necessary to express any opinion regarding the merits of the case. Suffice it to say that there is a civil dispute between the parties and false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is in custody since 17th October 2007 and the possibility of early trial is remote taking into consideration the present pendency in the concerned Sessions Court and also taking into consideration the fact that applicant has a permanent place of residence at Mira Road, Dist.Thane at the address mentioned in the title of the application and also taking into consideration the fact that there is no fear of applicant absconding in the event bail being granted to him, in my view, he is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R 4 . The applicant be released on bail on personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each subject to the following conditions:- . The applicant shall not make any inducement or threats to the prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. . This order shall come to an end of 7 days after the charge-sheet is filed in the concerned police station whereupon the applicant shall be entitled to apply for bail before the concerned court who shall consider the application, if made to it, on its own merits on the material placed before him at that time without being in any manner influenced by any of the observations made in this order. (D.G. KARNIK, J)