1 ABA-1036.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1036 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} Chandan K. Shrivastava .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri A.K. Singh i/b V.R. Doifode for the Applicant. Smt. S.V. Sonawane, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: DECEMBER 20, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by an Advocate which discloses disturbing facts. The applicant was approached by the victim for initiating proceedings against her employer. The applicant is alleged to have taken fees quantified at `50,000/- from time to time. The applicant made indecent advances towards the victim. The learned counsel for the applicant states that offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is bailable. There can be no doubt about this. However, there are two more offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, which in 2 ABA-1036.11 fact enabled the applicant to approach this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that even before the report was filed with the police on 24-11-2011, the applicant had already filed for the victim a Plaint on 9-11-2011 bearing Stamp No.4045 of 2011 in the Civil Court at Thane. The copy of the civil suit is annexed to the application at pages 81 to 83 and speaks volumes about the services which the applicant has rendered to the victim as a lawyer. Apart from this, the learned APP points out that in the year 2006 there was a complaint of offence under Section 354 of IPC against the applicant which led to filing of a charge-sheet and the applicant is facing that trial in the Magistrate's Court. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the said matter pertains to a bar girl and that the complainant has not been appearing in that case to tender her evidence. The status of the victim is not so important as the status of the applicant as a member of a noble profession who should have been accused of indulging in such behaviour twice so far. Considering the nature of the allegations made, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The application is therefore rejected. 3 ABA-1036.11 2. The applicant may surrender before the Competent Court which Court will decide the entitlement of bail considering request, if any, from the police presumably on the same day. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)