{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4534 OF 2009 1. Dinaji s/o Rupaji Shrikhande Age-55 years, Occ-Agril 2. Raju s/o Dinaji Shrikhande Age-25 years, Occ-Agril 3. Gajanan s/o Dinaji Shrikhande Age-20 years, Occ-Argil 4. Kapil s/o Dinaji Shrikhande Age-19 years, Occ-Agril 5. Kaveri Dinaji Shrikhande Age-52 years, Occ-Agril All R/o Ranjala Tq-Aundha Dist-Hingoli APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Hatta Tq-Basmat, Dist-Hingoli RESPONDENT ....... Mr.A.B.Dhongade, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.136/2009 registered {2} with Hatta police station for an offence punishable u/s 379 and 188 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, carried out till today. 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Digamber, who is serving as a Clerk in Panchayat Samiti Ghansawangi. It is alleged in the compliant that he is owner and in possession of Gut No.214 situated at Ghansawangi. It is further alleged that there was dispute over the said land between applicant No.1 and the complainant. It is contended that civil suit was filed in respect of the possession over the said land by the complainant, which came to be decreed in favour of the complainant and appeal against which is also dismissed. It is contended that on 6th October 2009, when the mother of the complainant visited the field, it was revealed that crop of soyaben was removed from the field and on inquiry it transpired that the applicants have removed the same and hence complaint came to be lodged on 02.12.2009. 4. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that the complaint came to be lodged after a gap of two months of the alleged incident. Though statements of the family members are recorded during the investigation, yet they are vague and no {3} specific role is attributed to the applicants and hence it is prayed to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. 5. According to learned APP, the decree of the civil Court is in favour of the complainant and inspite of the same, the applicants have forcibly entered the field and removed the crop and hence urged to reject the application. 6. Considering the rival submissions, I fail to understand that if the crop from 3 acres of land was removed in the night between 5th and 6th October 2009 and the cost of which is approximately Rs.50,000/-, then why compliant was not lodged for two months. It creates doubt in respect of the statements disclosed in the complaint. In the premise, this is a fit case to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. In the result, application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with CR No.136/2009, they be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. This protection is granted till filing of the charge sheet, if any. Applicants may apply for regular bail after filing of the chargesheet. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4534-09