1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 390/ 2010 [Saleem Khan s/o Abdul Karim vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr Rizwy, Adv. for applicant Mr Anand Fulzele, APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : MARCH 12, 2010 . This application was filed seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.48/2010 reported at Pachpaoli Police Station Nagpur for offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 313,376 and sections 3 (2)(v) and 3 (1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with section 506-B of the IPC. On earlier occasion, learned Advocate for the applicant made a statement that the applicant is ready and willing to marry with the prosecutrix. Therefore, prosecutrix as well as the applicant were called to the Court. I had heard them separately in my chamber. Reconciliation between them appears impossible. I do not want to enter into the reasons which are stated in the chamber as it would likely to affect the merits of the case,if disclosed at at this stage. Suffice it to say that there is no possibility of reconciliation although according to the applicant there was love affair between him and the prosecutrix and she 2 had conceived and furthermore he is ready and wiling to cohabit with her if she agree to cohabit with him by tying the marital knot. 2 Learned APP who has filed reply to this application, submitted that the prosecutrix had made complaint alleging serious offences which are required to be investigated. According to learned APP there was also alleged breach of promise to marry with her after she had conceived on account of physical relationship between them. Be that as it may; considering the serious nature of the accusations, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. However, the matter must be left to the discretion of the regular court to decide the bail application on its own merits. 3 In order to enable the applicant to approach the regular court with prayer for bail on merits, I am inclined to grant temporary anticipatory bail until 22nd March 2010 during which period the applicant may approach the regular Court and apply for bail on merits by surrendering himself on or before 22.3.2010. 4 Leaned Advocate for the applicant stated that JMFC Court No.5 is concerned with the remand applications from crimes reported at Pachpaoli Police Station. However, According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, in the ruling in Prashant Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 All MR (Cri) 1436 it was held that when an accused appears before the Court he is under control of the Court and is entitled to apply for 3 bail. When a person accused of an offence personally attends the court and applies for bail, he subjects himself to the control of the court and the court in such case can consider his application for bail treating him as a person “in custody” for the purpose of section 439 of the Code. However in the recent ruling in HDFC Bank Limited vs. J.J. Mannan reported in 2010 All MR Cri.Page 654 (SC) the Apex Court after making reference to Salauddin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (1996) on SCC Page 667 and Gurbakshsingh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC Page 565 as also Savitri Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 ALL MR Cri. 3084 (SC) clarified the legal position that anticipatory bail should be of limited duration only and primarily on the expiry of period or extended duration the court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter on appreciation of the evidence before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted. 5 It cannot be disputed in the present case that the regular court would be Court of Sessions while at the stage of remand, the regular court would be JMFC Court No.5 dealing with the remand applications. The regular Court cannot be by-passed. In the present case in view of the peculiar nature of accusations, the applicant may be permitted to approach the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur with prayer for regular bail as ultimately the Sessions 4 Court Nagpur would be trial Court to hear and decide the case. Therefore, the applicant is permitted to approach the Sessions Court Nagpur with prayer for regular bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. on or before 22.3.2010. If such an application is moved before the learned Sessions Judge Nagpur, shall decide the same in accordance with law on its own merit considering the progress made in the investigation and material placed before it. It is made clear that the I.O. will have an opportunity of hearing through the learned APP appearing in Sessions case. In the meantime, if arrested, in respect of the aforementioned Crime, the applicant shall be released upon executing upon PR bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with one or more surety in the equal amount, provided further that if he avails of this order before 22.3.2010, he shall attend the I.O. as and when required. This order shall automatically expire on 22.3.2010. Application disposed of. Humdast granted. Steno copy, free of cost, is allowed. JUDGE sahare