1 ABA 529.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 529 OF 2011 Mr. Amit Prakash Gavali. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. M.S. Mohite for the Applicant. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 21st JUNE 2011. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Mohite, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mrs. Shinde, learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant is sought to be arrested in C.R. No.52/2011 registered at Lonavala City Police Station, which is in respect of offences punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C., 452 of I.P.C., 506 of I.P.C., 504 of I.P.C. and 120-B of I.P.C. He seeks anticipatory bail, by this application. 3. The F.I.R. lodged by one Nandkishore Khandelwal indicates that the said Khandelwal owns some immovable property at Raiwood, Lonavala, consisting of land and a bungalow known as "Ahuja Holiday Home" situate therein. On 1.4.2011, at about 15.30 hours, some persons entered inside the said bungalow, caused damage to the goods and articles kept therein, threatened the First Informant and others, who 2 ABA 529.11.sxw were present there, at the point of revolver; and said that `the property was to be purchased by Amit Gavali - the present Applicant - and therefore, the First Informant and others should not remain in the said property.’ It is also alleged that 4 T.V. Sets in the said bungalow, some documents, some broken locks and keys and some other articles were taken away by those persons in two cars one bearing No.MH/14/AM/7567 and the other, the number of which was not noticed by the First Informant and the witnesses. Some of the persons, who had entered inside the said bungalow and had threatened the First Informant and others, were known to the First Informant and as such have been named in the F.I.R. In the course of investigation, totally 11 persons have been arrested so far, including some of those who were mentioned as un-known persons, in the F.I.R. 4. Admittedly, the Applicant was not present on the scene of the offence. Mr. Mohite, the learned Advocate for the Applicant is right in saying that the Applicant is sought to be involved in the alleged offences only on the basis of the statement made by one of the co-accused at the time of the incident that Amit Gavali, (i.e. the Applicant), wanted to purchase the property and that he and others were the persons of Amit Gavali. 5. Mr. Mohite contended that merely on the basis of such statement and in the absence of anything else against the Applicant, the Applicant cannot be denied anticipatory bail. 3 ABA 529.11.sxw According to him, even assuming that such a statement was made by one of the co-accused, such statement could be false. He also submitted that the persons, who were actually present at the scene of the offence, included 3 members of Kamble family, who are, admittedly, interested in the said property and admittedly they are having a dispute with Ahuja Trust, from whom the First Informant is claiming to have purchased the property in question. 6. Mrs. Shinde, learned APP submitted that the brother of the Applicant is interested in purchasing the property and has entered into an agreement of sale with Kamble family. She also submits that, therefore, there is every possibility that the Applicant is indeed interested in driving away the First Informant from the said property. She also submitted that a number of criminal cases had been filed in the past against the Applicant and that some of them are pending. 7. Mr. Mohite, learned Advocate for the Applicant has dealt with the cases, said to be pending against the Applicant by referring to each one of them. According to him, out of the 6 cases mentioned in the say filed by the Police before the Sessions Court, 3 have resulted in acquittal. He submitted that out of the remaining 3, one does not relate to bodily offences. He pointed out that in C.R. No.72 of 2009, which is in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., the Applicant has been granted bail by this Court, holding that there was no prima-facie case against him and 4 ABA 529.11.sxw that the material on record was not sufficient to indicate that the Applicant was a co-conspirator in the incident, which was the subject matter of that case. 8. I have carefully considered the matter. That there is a dispute, with respect to the property in question, cannot be doubted. That the members of the Kamble family are claiming rights over the said property, and that they are, therefore, obviously unhappy about the Applicant’s claim of having purchased it and about his having occupied it, cannot be doubted. However, the learned APP pointed out that there has been an association of the members of the Kamble family and the present Applicant in the past also. In the said C.R. No. 72 of 2009, one Girish Kamble, who is also an accused in the present case is an accused alongwith the present Applicant. The brother of the Applicant is said to be one of the actual assailants in C.R. No.72 of 2009, as per the prosecution case. 9. Moreover, in the course of investigation, the statement of the co-accused - Girish Kamble - has been recorded. In that statement, he clearly implicates the present Applicant. In my opinion, at the investigation stage, such a statement of the co-accused can be looked into to see whether there are justifiable grounds for arresting the Applicant. 10. The statement made by one of the accused, at the time of the incident, which has been mentioned in the F.I.R., the statement of the co-accused - Girish Kamble – recorded during the investigation, and the fact that the said Girish Kamble - 5 ABA 529.11.sxw the brother of the Applicant - and the Applicant, are involved in some other criminal case, which is pending, are the factors, which indicate that in the present case, the possibility that the incident had been taken place at the instance or instigation of the present Applicant, cannot be ruled out. The Applicant is a Corporator. 11. In my opinion, in the event of the Applicant being granted anticipatory bail, there exists a possibility of the First Informant and witnesses being uncomfortable; and if that would happen, the investigation would be affected. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 12. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. 13. It is clarified that the observations about the involvement of the Applicant are only tentative and made in the context of the question as to whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the Applicant or not. Needless to say that in the event of the Applicant getting arrested or surrendering, and seeking regular bail, the Court dealing with the bail application shall consider the same on merit, without being influenced by these observations, or the fact of the rejection of the anticipatory bail application by this Court. (A.M. THIPSAY,J.) 6 ABA 529.11.sxw