[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO. 2419 OF 2008 Shri.Rajendra Prasad Pandey ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Shirish Gupte senior counsel along with Mr.R.S.Datar Advocate for Applicant Ms.P.P.Shinde APP for the State Mr.Amol Patankar, Advocate for Complainant ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 21, 2008 DATE : JULY 21, 2008 DATE : JULY 21, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P.for the State and the learned advocate for the complainant. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.98 of 2000 of Ambad Police Station, Dist.Nasik. The said case is under Section 307 of IPC. 3. The applicant is the son-in-law of the complainant. The incident in the present case occurred in the year 2000. The case of the [-2-] complainant is that two persons came and fired at him. In the said incident he received injuries on his right palm. The case of the complainant is that the said two persons fired at him at the instance of the applicant who is his son-in-law. There is property dispute between the applicant and the complainant and the case of the complainant is that the incident occurred as a result of property dispute. 4. The said case was investigated by the police and after investigation the police applied for ‘A’ summary before the concerned Magistrate. ‘A’ summary came to be granted by the learned Magistrate. However, the complainant challenged the said order before the High Court stating that he was not heard at the time when ‘A’ summary came to be granted by the Magistrate. Hence, this Court by order dated 19.7.2006 set aside the order of the Magistrate granting ‘A’ summary and directed the learned Magistrate to re-hear the matter. After re-hearing the matter, the learned Magistrate directed further investigation. As the applicant has been called to the police station in respect of further investigation, the applicant is [-3-] apprehending arrest. 5. As stated earlier, the case is of the year 2000. Police have already investigated the matter. The dispute is between the father in law and son in law on account of some property. It is not the case of the complainant that the applicant himself fired at the complainant. Looking to all these facts, I am of the opinion that today the custody of the applicant would not be necessary, hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that the applicant had earlier preferred application for anticipatory bail which came to be rejected by this Court. It is seen that the said order is dated 24.8.2000. Thereafter the police conducted investigation and had prayed for ‘A’ Summary and ‘A’ summary came to be granted by the learned Magistrate. and the case was closed. In view of the facts of this case, the earlier rejection order dated 24.8.2000 cannot be a ground to reject the application for anticipatory bail today. [-4-] 7. In the event of arrest, the applicant-Rajendra Prasad Pandey be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. one lakh only) with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant shall report to Ambad Police Station every day between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. for a period of ten days starting from 23rd July, 2008 and thereafter as and when called. 8. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]