IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2608 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2608 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2608 OF 2007 Vinay Shivkumar Singh ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents. Mrs Anjali Iyer i/b Vinod Wagh, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr S. S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. Mr Mohan Tekavde with Jeetendra Ramugade, Advocates for the Original Complainant. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 02.07.2008. DATED: 02.07.2008. DATED: 02.07.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and material available on record. 3. The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 124 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 143, 147,148, 149, 427, 395, 397 of the I.P.C. registered with Kurla Police Station, Mumbai. 4. It appears that prior to invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the jurisdiction of the Principal Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, was invoked by the applicant and by an order dated 31.7.2007 the said Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail for a period of one week with direction to surrender before the competent Criminal Court i.e. of Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla on or before 6th August, 2007. The directions were also issued to the Remand Court to decide the application, in the event the applicant applies for bail. 5. It appears that on 1.8.2007 the applicant appeared before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court at Kurla through his Advocate, and preferred an application for bail. 6. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate pending consideration of the application for bail, took the applicant-accused in judicial custody on 1.8.2007 and remanded him to the ( 3 ) Police Custody till the next date of hearing i.e. 2nd August, 2007. 7. It appears that the Advocate for the applicant approached Police Station,Kurla on the same day, i.e., on 1.8.2007 and requested the Senior Police Officer of Police Station, Kurla to comply with the order and directions of the Sessions Judge, whereunder it was ordered that in the event of arrest before 6.8.2007 the applicant should be released on bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one or two sureties. 8. It appears that initially the aforesaid Senior Police Officer, refused to accept the request made since the learned Magistrate had taken the applicant in custody. He expressed his inability to release the applicant on bail. 9. It appears that Revision Application against the order of the learned Magistrate, 11th Court at Kurla for taking the applicant in custody was filed before the learned Sessions Court. ( 4 ) 10. The Advocate appearing for the applicant appears to have renewed his request for release on bail in writing to the Senior Police officer, Kurla to comply with the earlier order of the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. 11. The Senior Police Officer, Kurla Police Station appears to have accepted the request made may be under pressure and enlarged the applicant on bail and obtained P.R.bond with one surety on 2.8.2007 at or around 11.30 A.M. though the bail application was to come up for hearing and orders before the learned Magistrate on the same day in the post-lunch session around 3.00 p.m. for further hearing. 12. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not pass any order on merits and ruled that bail application was infructuous. Thus, ( 5 ) the bail application was disposed of by the learned Magistrate but not on merits. 13. The applicant inspite of having been released on bail by an order dated 2.8.2007, chose to move the present application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to seek anticipatory bail and sought extension of the earlier order of the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge which had already exhausted since the applicant had surrendered before learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 1.8.2007. 14. At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that a bunch of cases were filed by the different Advocates raising a common question of law as to whether or not the anticipatory bail for a limited duration can be granted? The hearing and decision on the said issue took fairly a long time. During this period the applicant enjoyed interim protection under the orders of this Court, ( 6 ) though the applicant was well aware of the fact that the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable and that the earlier order of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge had exhausted with his surrender before the learned Magistrate on 1.8.2007. However, the fact remains that the applicant took advantage of the interim order of this Court though wrongly. 15. Now, when this matter is placed before this Court, all the facts stated herein came to light. 16. The State has filed the affidavit of Police Inspector attached to Kurla Police Station, wherein he has stated because of some misunderstanding and misreading of the order passed by the learned Sessions Court the applicant-accused was released on bail on 2.8.2007. 17. Having seen the above reply, one thing is clear that once having surrendered before ( 7 ) the Metropolitan Magistrate, it was only the Metropolitan Magistrate, who could have dealt with the issue of bail. The Police Officer had no jurisdiction to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, the order releasing the applicant on bail by the Police Officer is unsustainable. 18. In the above circumstances, the applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a week from today and thereafter he may apply for regular bail afresh. In the event of such application, the Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to consider the application for grant of bail on its own merits. 19. In the result, the present application stands disposed of in terms of this order. 20. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial.