1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3058 OF 2008 Shri Vasant Ganpat Lokhande ...Applicant vs. Smt.Sundarabai w/o. Prabhakar V. Lokhande & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha for the Applicant. Mr.Vinit N. Jain for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 12, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2 This an application for recalling the order dated 6th February, 2009. 3 Learned Counsel Shri Jha appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that in para 4 of 2 the said order it has been observed that since the chargesheet is filed, custodial interrogation of the respondents is not necessary. It is submitted that the applicant herein thereafter filed an application under Right to Information Act and he was informed that the chargesheet was filed on 26th February, 2009. It was submitted that therefore, incorrect statement was made by the Investigating Officer on 6th February, 2009 when the application was decided by this Court. 4 An Affidavit-in-reply has been filed. In para 8 of the said reply, it is stated that report was submitted to this Court stating therein that the custody of the present respondents is not required for the purpose of interrogation or investigation and that the respondents had attended the police station and had co-operated with the police in the investigation of the case and therefore, investigation was completed. It is submitted that therefore, the custody of the respondents was not 3 necessary. In para 4 of the affidavit-in-reply, an unconditional apology has been tendered by the concerned officer stating that inadvertently, the said statement had been made. 5 In my view, it is possible that while dictating the order, inadvertently, this court may have recorded that the chargesheet had been filed when in fact, the investigation had been completed by the said investing officer. In any case, I have observed in the said order dated 6th February, 2009 that the custodial interrogation of the respondents was not necessary and that was an additional ground under which the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail was rejected. In view of this, no case is made out for recalling the order dated 6th February, 2009. 7 The application, accordingly, is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)