1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 121 OF 2008 Subhabrata Sudanshu Datta ... Petitioner Vs. Senior Inspector of Police GBCB CID, EOW, Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.V.Marwadi, i/b. Mr. Dilip Devadiga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP, for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. - State. Mr. Pranav Badneka, i/b. M/s. Chitnis & Co.,Advocates for the respondent No.3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th July, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant apprehended arrest by Economic Offences Wing of the Police in EOW CR No.54/2007 and, therefore, he approached the Sessions Court, Mumbai, for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. By order dated 9.1.2008, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail for a period of one week an directed the petitioner to approach the regular Court on or before 16.1.2008 and apply for bail on merits. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that if such bail application is moved, it shall be disposed of as early as possible and, preferably 2 within three days. The petitioner having obtained that order, never filed an application for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Instead of that, he filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court on the ground that anticipatory bail could not be granted for such a limited period. 3. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Prashant Kishor Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1436 heard a similar matter at great length and observed as follows in paras 71 and 74 :- "71. The recent trend in the matters of seeking pre-arrest bail is to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Court under section 438 of the Code in the same week in which FIR is filed. When the matters come before the Court for consideration, invariably the investigation is half way. Entire material is normally absent before the Court while considering prayer under section 438. The Courts are called upon to consider the question on the basis of inadequate material or incomplete investigation. The High Court or the Sessions Court while considering the bail application under section 438 does not assume the role of the trial Court. Exhaustive exploration on the merits of the case is not contemplated though a Court dealing with the basic application is required to be satisfied as to whether there is prima facie case. In the wake of this scenario, the condition fixing the duration of anticipatory bail cannot be said to be unjustified. It can very well be justified on the text of section 438 of the Code itself." 3 "74. In the ultimate analysis, I hold that anticipatory bail can be for a limited duration upto the time when viable change takes place in fact situation like completion of investigation or filing of charge-sheet and that Salauddin's case (supra) which is the forerunner for all subsequent cases to conclude that anticipatory bail could be only for a limited period is not at variance with the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Gurbaksh Singh (supra)." I am in respectful agreement with the same. Thus, this Court has taken a clear view that the anticipatory bail may be granted for a limited period and that power flows from the powers vested in the Sessions Court or the High Court to impose conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I find no merit in the present Writ Petition. 4. The learned APP, on instructions from the concerned Investigating Officer, makes a statement that statements of number of witnesses have been recorded. However, 5 witnesses have not cooperated and they are not willing to come forward. As the investigation is going on for two and half years and if those 5 witnesses are not willing to co-operate, the Investigating Officer can proceed with the matter even for filing a charge sheet or any other report on the basis of material which he has already collected. The learned APP also makes a statement that even though the present complainant was called and interrogated on four occasions, he never gave proper reply to any questions and thus he has not been co- 4 operating. The order of anticipatory bail, which was to expire on 16.1.2008 as per the impugned order, was extended from time to time by this Court and that extension is still in force. As now I propose to dismiss the petition, it will be appropriate that the petitioner may be given some time to approach the regular Court with bail application and the concerned Court may hear the bail application and decide the same on its own merits on the basis of the material which the investigating agency must have collected by this time. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the anticipatory bail granted by this Court is extended upto 15.7.2010. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move the application for regular bail before that date after giving prior notice to the Investigating officer. The concerned Court shall hear the bail application expeditiously and shall decide the same, as far as possible, by 15.7.2010. If no such application is moved upto 15.7.2010, the investigating agency shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner on or after 16.7.2010. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)