1 Cri.B.A.No.401/22Ex.1Order. Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No. 401/ 2022
Lokesh Tatya Dhangar … Applicant Accused.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through PI Sinnar Police St. .. Respondent. (Cr. No. I 110/2022)
Order below Exh. 1
1.This application has been filed by the applicant/accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on anticipatory bail in Crime. No.I 110/2022 registered at Sinnar Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 380, 425, 461, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this Court has granted interim protection to the applicant till filing of say by the investigating Officer.
2.The brief facts of the case are : The FIR was lodged by the Complainant Samina Anis Shaikh on 23.03.2022 alleging therein that she stays near Rana Pratap Talkies, Nashikves, Sinnar alongwith her family members. The Complainant, her brotherinlaws Ahmad Yusuf Shaikh and Sartaj Yusuf Shaikh have constructed three shops at Nawapool, near Bajarves, Sinnar. In one of the Shops, she used to do cloth business, meat business in another Shop and third Shop was left empty. All these Shops are situated on CTS No.570A admeasuring 363.34 Sq.Mtrs. On 22.03.2022, the accused came to
their Shop and told them to vacate the said Shops and also threatened to demolish the same. On 23.03.2022, the Complainant and her brotherinlaws arrived at the Shops at their customary times and found that all the three Shops were demolished and articles therein were missing. They then, went to the Police Station, narrated the entire incident to the Police and suspected the accused being involved.
The articles worth Rs.1,32,000/ was found missing from their Shops.
Based on her report, FIR was registered vide CR No.110/2022. The applicant is apprehending his arrest at the hands of the Police.
3.The ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has no concerned with the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It is the case of the applicant that Complainant has encroached upon the Government land and constructed Shops on it. They are not the Owners of the land.
They didn’t file any documents on record to show that they are the Owner of the land. The applicant has purchased the adjacent land from their original Owners through registered documents and since then he is the owner and in possession of the land. The complainant and her brotherinlaw have encroached upon his land. Despite repeated request, they did not remove their encroachment. So the relations are strained between them. So he has been implicated owing to old enmity. In support, the ld. Counsel has filed extracts of his property details on record. Hence, lastly, he prayed that interim protection granted to him be confirmed.
4.The Investigating Officer has filed his reply at Exh.7 and strongly opposed the application on the ground that the applicant has committed serious offence. The articles stolen are to be recovered from the accused. His custodial interrogation is necessary to extract the credible information relating to the crime. Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.
The ld. APP Smt. Jadhav has filed her written notes of argument at Exh.8 and strongly opposed the application on the ground that if accused is released on bail, he may pressurize the complainant and witnesses. She lastly prayed that considering the nature of offence and as stolen articles are yet to be recovered, the custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary and hence prayed for rejection of the application.
The Complainant appeared and filed her written say at Exh.10. She has also filed photographs of the demolition of Shops and a copy of Civil Suit filed by her against the applicant for Injunction.
3.After going through the documents filed on record by both the sides and on hearing ld. Counsels, it appears that the complainant is not claiming that she is the owner of the land where her shops were located. It is her contention that they were doing the business in those Shops from the time of their forefathers. The applicant is claiming his rights on adjacent plot. The dispute is related to encroachment of land. If the applicant had a grievance against the complainant and her brother in laws, he should have filed Civil suit for removal of encroachment. Demolition is not the solution. Further, the photographs on record shows that all three Shops were totally damaged and demolished. He cannot take the law into his own hands.
He has caused loss to the complainant and her relatives. Prima facie there are allegations of theft of articles also. Considering the allegations, custodial interrogation is required to recover the stolen articles and for extracting the incredible information relating to the crime. Hence, considering the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to confirm the interim protection granted to the applicant. Hence, following order.
ORDER
1/ Application stands rejected.
2/ The interim protection granted to the applicant by this Court on 14.03.2022 stands vacated forthwith.
Inform concerned Police Station.
Digitally signed by NAIR NAIR SANDHYA SANDHYA SUNIL SUNIL Date: 2022.04.28 15:06:19 -0600 ( Smt. S.S. Nair ) Date : 27.04.2022. Addl. Sessions Judge 4, Nashik.