1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1379 of 2010 Atish Purushottam Pawar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Gittikhadan, Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M.N.Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.J.Khan, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 23 rd Novem ber , 2010 . Heard. This is an application filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 219/2010 registered with Gittikhadan Police Station, for the offence punishable under SEctions 366, 506-B, 34 of I.PC. By order dated 08/9/2010, this Court had granted interim protection to the applicant and in order to explore the possibility of mediation between the applicant and the complainant, the matter was referred to the Mediator. It is reported by the Co-ordinator, Mediation Centre that the mediation could not arrived at conclusion and ultimately the mediation is failed. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the complainant is a major and the applicant and the complainant were in love. He invited my attention to the text of long conversation between the applicant and the complainant and submitted that it shows their long standing association. He further submitted that the elder members of the family of the complainant i.e. the father and uncle are insisting upon judicial seperation by mutual consent. The 2 learned Advocate has informed that the applicant has not flouted any condition imposed by this Court while granting interim protection to the applicant and also undertakes to cooperate with the investigating agency and to abide by the conditions in future. Learned APP has filed the reply and opposed the application. Learned APP submitted that the investigation is in progress and an apprehension is expressed that if the applicant is released on bail, he may pressurize the witnesses. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. In view of above, I find that the apprehension expressed by learned APP is already taken care of by putting the applicant on conditions while granting interim protection. It is also found that there is no specific material reflected in the reply filed by the State stating therein that the applicant has not cooperated with the investigation or committed breach of any conditions imposed on him during the course of interim protection. Hence, in my opinion, a prima facie case is made out by the applicant. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted by this Court by order dated 08/9/2010 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions. In case of breach of these conditions, the prosecution agency to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law. Criminal Application is disposed of in the above terms. Hamdast permitted. JUDGE Diwale