1 ABA-974.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.974 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} Mrs. Lakshmi Gopal Devendar W/o Gopalkrishna Ramaswamy .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Shri Mohan Pillai for the Applicant. Ms M.R. Tidke, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 25, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by a lady who apprehends arrest in Crime No.224 of 2011, registered with the Wadala T.T. Police Station, Mumbai. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP, instructed by Shri L.S. Deshmukh, PSI, Wadala T.T. Police Station. 2. It appears that one Narendra Tripathi's wife gave a report that the applicant had virtually ousted them from the tenement which Narendra Tripathi was occupying. 2 ABA-974.11 This is allegedly on the basis of some documents executed by Vijay Mahipal Pawar who is not found. 3. A Suit is already filed in the City Civil Court on 27-9-2011 by the applicant in which interim protection has been granted to the applicant. The learned APP states that the applicant is likely to have grabbed more such properties and therefore it is necessary to arrest the applicant. It is not clear as to why if the police are of the view that more such properties have been grabbed by the applicant, without finding out which properties have been grabbed, if any, and if other properties have been grabbed at all, offences could have also been registered. As far as this incident is concerned and considering the genesis of the incident and also the fact that the parties are before the City Civil Court, the applicant's being in custody for the purpose of investigation is not at all necessary. 4. In view of the above, in the event of the applicant s arrest in the above-stated crime number, the applicant be released on bail on her furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of 25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in 3 ABA-974.11 the sum aggregating to 25,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall report at the police station concerned on 30-11-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O.. 5. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and she shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 6. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 312. 7. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)