1 5084.11 Cri.Appln. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5084 OF 2011 Ramprasad Wamanrao Kadam (Bordikar) APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENT ..... Shri R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri S.B. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for respondent / State ..... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICTION NO. 5083 OF 2011 Digamber Sakharam Pawar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for applicant Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for respondent / State CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 22 nd December, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Shri R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri S.B. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 5084/2011 and Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the applicant in 2 5084.11 Cri.Appln. Criminal Application 5083/2011 submit that the applicants propose to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court against the order of rejection of the anticipatory bail and for that purpose the rejection may be stayed till 02-01-2012 and the oral directions given to the State for not arresting the applicants be continued. 2. Learned A.P.P. Shri B.V. Wagh for State, submits that this Court had asked the State whether the applicants were arrested and it was disclosed that the applicants were not arrested; and thereupon the Court remarked that they (police) will not arrest them. 3. These applications were placed before this Court on 16-12-2011 for the first time, after two Judges by this Court had recused themselves for the reasons best known to them. There is no such record of the oral directions given by the predecessor Court. Even then placing credence on the statement made by the learned A.P.P. one can only get feeling that the Court prophesized something regarding arrest of applicants/accused. 4. Now after considering the merits of these applications, this Court has reached a conclusion that there is need for custodial interrogation, and therefore, the prayers of the applicants 3 5084.11 Cri.Appln. were rejected. At this stage, learned A.P.P. submits that the State is interested in taking custody of the applicants as early as possible. 5. In the result, the prayer for extending the protection given to the applicants/accused till 02-01-2012 is rejected. 6. Copy of this order be furnished to the applicants. Sd/- ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* December-11