((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1066 OF 2008 Neelakshi Rajesh Nair Petitioner versus The State of Maha. & others Respondents Rajesh D. Bindra for petitioner. A.S.Gadkari, APP for respondents 4 to 8. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 27th August 2008 PC : 1. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner was that she filed a complaint with Police on 10th December 2007 but a case was not registered. 2. This writ petition was entertained by this Court on 21st May 2008. During the course of hearing a counter affidavit was also filed and we were told that case has been registered and the accused have got anticipatory bail. A copy of order was shown to us. Therefore, an order was passed by this Court on 21st July 2008 by which record of grant of anticipatory bail was summoned from Lower Court. ((-2-)) 3. This record was examined on 21st July 2008 and we were of the prima facie view that the bail has been granted for extraneous reasons. Therefore, we issued notice to the accused calling upon them to show cause as to why bail granted to them be not cancelled. We also directed the Police Officer to give day to day account of the investigation of the case. 4. It is admitted that a complaint was filed on 10th December 2007. It is also admitted that a case was not registered till 17th May 2008 i.e. the date after the writ petition had been entertained by this Court which makes it clear that Police concerned even had not registered a case till 17th May 2008 which means for a period of six months and had the petitioner not been approached this Court, the complaint could not have been registered at all. 5. Although some reasons have been given as to what was done on which date, but the Police could not even discover a reason to tell us as to what was done between 30th December 2007 till 24th March 2008, as the synopsis of events ((-3-)) which has been furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor shows that on 30th December 2007 respondent no.5 had received the said complaint/application dated 10th December 2007. 6. We restrain ourselves from making any comments or pass any orders which may be detrimental to the officers handling this case but at the same time we feel constraint to ensure that there is some method by which such issues are monitored by the Police Department and corrective actions can be taken. 7. Therefore, we direct that the copy of synopsis of events filed in this Court and a copy of present order be sent to the Commissioner of Police and we leave it to the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate steps in the matter, as the purpose for which this order is being passed, is that people have access to a redressal system and having access to redressal system, it is not always possible for everybody to approach the High Court. If law expects an Inspector of Police to redress a grievance of a citizen, it must be ensured that the grievance ought to be redressed at that stage itself, otherwise, the law becomes a tool ((-4-)) of injustice for the majority of the people of the country and serves only those who have access to the higher foras or have otherwise some other qualifications. 8. Regarding cancellation of bail, we feel that it may not be appropriate for this Court now at this stage to cancel the bail as the investigation is complete and charge sheet is likely to be filed within one week; but we must add that the learned Sessions Judges who grant anticipatory bails, shall also take into consideration the facts of each case while considering the bail applications and should not pass bail orders mechanically and shall try to substantiate their orders on the strength of law and not on any other expediency. 9. We give an opportunity to the learned Judge before whom charge sheet is going to be filed either to continue the bail of the accused persons or to send them to judicial custody during trial. However, this should not be taken as a direction from this Court either way. Learned Judge shall consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders. ((-5-)) 10. With these observations, the petition is disposed off. Record and proceedings received from the Sessions Court, Thane be sent back forthwith. All the concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order duly issued by the registry. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.)