* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3365 OF 2009 Ajaysingh Motisingh Sengar ........Petitioner/Orig.Resp V/S. Mrs. Sapna Ajaysingh Sengar & anr. .............Respondents Resp.no.1/Orig.Applicant ---------- Mr.Rahul Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, advocate for respondents. CORAM :- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED :- 7 th JANUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Heard. 2. The application is directed against an order passed by the trial court on 22/12/2009 in Criminal Application No. 950 of 2009. The trial court by the said order has directed that a search warrant for production of the children be issued. 3. The trial court has set out the circumstances in which the said order has been passed. 4. The only apprehension expressed before me by the learned counsel for * 2 * the petitioner is that if the children are produced as directed by the trial court, there is a likelihood that the custody would be handed over to the wife straightaway. From a reading of the order passed by the trial court and the other Annexures to the petition, this apprehension is entirely baseless. The trial court itself has observed that the application will be decided finally after the children are produced. To my mind, the trial court will apply its mind to all the facts and circumstances and with the necessary sensitivity, decide the application finally. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. Upon this court expressing its intention to direct production of the children as per the trial court s order, the learned counsel took time to take ’ instructions. At his request, the matter was posted today. Today, after seeking instructions from the petitioner, the learned counsel makes a statement that the children would be produced before the trial court on the next date i.e. 15/01/2010 positively. His statement made is accepted as undertaking to the court. 6. The statements and undertakings are recorded in the presence of the petitioner. 7. Apart from the fact that the petitioner shall be inviting all consequences for not abiding by the undertaking given to this court, in addition, if the petitioner fails to abide by the direction of the trial court, the trial court can * 3 * pass such other and further orders including directing enforcement of the search warrant. 8. The petition is dismissed subject to above directions. As directed by the trial court, the search warrant is stayed only till 15/01/2010. This is only to enable the petitioner to abide by the undertaking given to this court. [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J]