{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2010 1. Ajim s/o Abdul Mustakim Age-32 years, Occ-Agri 2. Abdul Subur s/o Abdul Moajjam Age-27 years, Occ-Teacher 3. Abdul Wadood s/o Abdul Moajjam Age-26 years, Occ-Business 4. Abdul Shikur s/o Abdul Moajjam Age-24 years, Occ-Business 5. Abdul Farhan s/o Abdul Moajjam Age-22 years, Occ-Education 6. Abdul Furkan s/o Abdul Moajjam Age-20 years, Occ-Education 7. Abdul Mohtesham s/o Abdul Naim Age-65 years, Occ-Agri 8. Abdul Mohtesim s/o Abdul Naim Age- 70 years, Occ-Agril 9. Abdul Mufakkam s/o Abdul Naim Age-55 years, Occ-Agril Respondents No.1 to 9 R/o Patrud Tq-Majalgaon, Dist-Beed 10. Shaker s/o Etematoddin Age-42 years, Occ-Contractor {2} 11. Shahed s/o Etematoddin Age-35 years, Occ-Service 12. Ejaj s/o Etematoddin Age-30 years, Occ-Agril 10 to 12 R/o Pathri Dist-Parbhani 13. Afan s/o Abdul Mulhim Age-18 years, Occ-Education R/o Patrud, Tq-Majalgaon Dist-Beed APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Dindrud Dist-Beed 2. The Superintendent of Police, Beed, Dist-Beed RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. S.J.Salunke, Advocate for applicants Mr. B.J.Sonawane, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.08/2010 registered with Dindrud police {3} station, Dist-Beed for an offence punishable u/s 395, 342, 504 of the IPC. Interim protection is granted to the applicants on 18.02.2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. Perusal of the papers of investigation indicates that that there is long standing civil litigation going on between the applicants and the complainant over 600 Acres of land on the point as to who is the Mutawalli and entitled for inheritance. In this regard civil suit No.126/1992 is also pending wherein the complainant party are the plaintiff whereas the applicants No.1, 7, 8 and 9 are defendants. It has to be noted that the complainant party claims 1/3 rd share out of the suit property and hence there is dispute. Due to the said dispute criminal cases are filed against the applicants so also by the applicants. CR No.08/2010, i.e. present complaint is an offshoot of the said dispute. It also appears that criminal complaint No.2/2010 is filed by the applicant No.1 against the complainant party wherein the accused are released on anticipatory bail. The said complaint is in respect of the incident dated 02.01.2010 so also the present complaint is in respect of an incident dated 02.01.2010, however reported on 11.1.2010. It appears that the compliant was lodged against 18 persons out of them the specific averments are made against applicants No.1, 12 and 13. My attention is drawn towards the order passed by the {4} lower court. It is observed that out of the 18 accused case in respect of accused No. 1, 3, 4, 13 and 17 does not appear to be probable and their false implication cannot be ruled out. Now the question for consideration before this Court is that out of 18 accused, if 5 are implicated falsely then what is the guarantee about the genuineness of allegations against the remaining accused. In view of long standing civil dispute between the parties it is desirable to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. In the premise, case is made out to exercise discretion in view of the fact that civil as well as criminal litigations are pending between the parties. 4. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection earlier granted is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. Applicants are directed to attend the Dindrud police station, whenever required on written requisition by the IO concerned and to cooperate with the investigating agency. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln586-10