1 8.apln3252-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3252 OF 2010 1. Mr.Mohammed Arif Ibrahim Choudhary, 2. Mr.Parvez Fakir Mohammed Choudhary, 3. Mr.Jaffar Fakir Mohammed Choudhary, 4. Mr.Naved Mohammed Noor Choudhary, & 5. Mr.Saeed Khurshid Choudhary. ..Applicants. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Ms.Sharmila Kaushik, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 21ST JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions on the previous date at length on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the five applicants apprehending their arrest in C.R. No.66 of 2010 registered with Lashkar police station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 454, 452, 380, 341, 327, 323, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 8.apln3252-10 2. Complaint was lodged by one woman who reside in the property owned by the Trust of which present applicants are the office bearers. There was some proposal of redevelopment of the trust property and alternate accommodation was offered to the complainant and agreement to that effect was also executed in July, 2005 and temporarily the complainant was shifted to the alternate premises. Thereafter at the redevelopment premises possession of the area was given to the complainant. According to the complainant on 12th April, 2010 there was wedding of her daughter and at that time present applicants forcibly entered the said premises in her occupation which were given as alternate accommodation and applicants tried to disposses her from the said property. According to the complainant, there was assault on her and other family members with the help of the weapons like iron bars, sticks etc.. Present applicants are named in the complaint. Allegations are that some amount of Rs.35,000/- was also 3 8.apln3252-10 stolen by way of cash along with some gold ornaments which were prepared for the purpose of wedding. It is also alleged that apart from the present applicants there were various other associates and who were carrying iron bars and sticks. A sort of riot like situation was created and the members of the family of the complainant were threatened of dire consequences for vacating said alternate premises. 3. Apparently the complainant has not vacated the alternate premises even inspite of getting possession in the redeveloped property and as such allegedly such act of ransacking took place. Considering this factual position and after hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants at length, in the opinion of this Court it would not be in the fitness of the situation to grant anticipatory bail at this juncture. However, protection can be given till applicants appear before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge and after surrendering themselves asked for regular bail. Under these circumstances, present application is disposed of with 4 8.apln3252-10 following directions :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Applicants to surrender before the concerned Sessions Court at Pune and apply for regular bail. In the meantime, they are protected from arrest at the hands of Lashkar police station. Protection granted to the applicants shall remain effective for the period of ten days from today. With these directions, application is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) ppd