1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATIONS (MAIN) NO.335,336,337,338 & 339 of 2009 Shimnit Utsch India Private Ltd. Through Mr. Ayan Ghoshi .... Applicant V/s State of Goa & 2 Ors. .... Respondents Mr. N. Sardessai, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 12/04/2010 P.C. : Heard. 2. It appears at the instance of the applicant herein that the Director of Transport filed an FIR which was investigated by the Margao Town Police Station. It appears that the accused against whom the complaints were filed, applied for either anticipatory bail of regular bail. Criminal Applications (Main) nos. 335,337 & 338 arise from orders passed by the District and Sessions Judge in matter of anticipatory bail and Criminal Applications (Main) nos. 336 and 339 arise from orders passed by the learned JMFC in respect of regular bail. The regular bail was granted by the learned JMFC while the applications for anticipatory bail were dealt by learned Sessions Judge. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2 applicant submits that the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge towards the end of para 6 may not come in the way of the investigations which are going on pursuant to the complaints filed by the said Director of Transport. 3. Shri Ferreira, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state submits that investigations are nearing completion. These applications have been filed for cancellation of bail granted. The State itself has not challenged the orders passed by the leaned JMFC, as well as that of the learned Sessions Judge. Considering that, I find there is no merit in these applications and accordingly the same are disposed of. Needless to observe, observations made in bail applications are only for the purposes of granting or refusing bail and certainly will not come in the way of investigations. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-