1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1474 OF 2010 (Satish Omkarrao Patil .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent-sole. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 12TH OCTOBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking protection from this Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has falsely involved in the crime. The applicant is responsible officer. On 17.09.2010, this Court passed the following order :- 3. Learned APP seeks time to file reply. Time granted till 24.09.2010. However, until reply is filed, the applicant, if arrested in connection with the above-said crime, be released on bail on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more surety; provided further that if this interim anticipatory bail granted for limited duration is availed of, the applicant shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation as and wen called for, by the Investigating Officer concerned. He shall inform his fixed address with land/mobile no. of if any. He shall not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not misuse his liberty.” Rejoinder is filed by the applicant on 04.10.2010. In the said rejoinder, in para 4, it is stated that the applicant was called by the Investigating Officer on 25.09.2010 in the office of Range Forest Officer Aheri at Alapalli and accordingly he attended the said office. The applicant was again called on 28.09.2010 and 29.09.2010 and he also attended the office of RFO on those dates. The applicant also produced the diary maintained by him having 2 endorsement of Range Forest Officer showing that the applicant attended the Range Forest Office. It is not the case of the respondent that the applicant has not obeyed the directions. It is clear from the statement of the applicant in rejoinder as well as in the diary maintained by the applicant that the applicant is cooperating with the investigating agency. It is also not in dispute that the alleged furniture is already seized. Learned Counsel for the applicant makes a statement that the applicant being the responsible police officer will be available to Investigating Officer as and when required. Learned Counsel for the respondent/authority was unable to show that any hindrance was caused due to non cooperation of the applicant. The reply is filed by the respondent/ authority. The respondent/authority is unable to show that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. In view of the aforementioned facts, the application deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The interim protection granted by this Court on 17th September, 2010 is confirmed with additional condition that the applicant to make himself available to the Investigating Officer on 14th October, 2010 and thereafter on every Sunday from 09:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon till the charge sheet is filed. Criminal Application is allowed. Hamdast granted. JUDGE *rrg.