( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2612 OF 2009 1. Nanarao s/o Sakharam Ghuge 2. Ramesh s/o Dnyandeo Warade 3. Hiralal s/o Shankardas Bairagi 4. Yuvraj s/o Bhatu Borse 5. Mahesh s/o Vijay Jadhav 6. Chandrakant s/o Rangrao Patil 7. Umesh s/o Gulabrao Patil 8. Bapu s/o Damu Kokani All r/o Police Head quarters, Dhule, Tq. and Dist. Dhule and are working in Local Crime Branch, Dhule. 9. Pankaj Narendra Chavan 10. Vijay s/o Popat Madane, Both r/o Police Line, Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhule, Tq. and District Dhule. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr. V.S. Kadam, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the respondents, assisted by Mr. P.B. Pawar, advocate for the original complainant (i.e. applicant in Cri.Appln. No.2976/2009) ..... ( 2 ) [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 25th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. By this application, the petitioners are seeking directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They apprehend their arrest in pursuance to complaint lodged by the original accused of which cognizance is taken vide R.C.C. No. 532/2009 for offences punishable under section 307, 325, 326 read with section 109 and 34 of the I.P. Code. 2. The petitioners are officials of police department and are attached to Local Crime Branch, Dhule. There took place house breaking and theft at a grocery shop styled as “Sagar Provisions and General Stores, Hanumannagar, Dhule”. The proprietor of the shop lodged report with the police. The police carried out certain investigation into the crime. On 28th March, 2009, the police noticed that Sopan Chhagan Patil and others were sitting by side of Arihant Mangal Karyalaya ( 3 ) in the odd hours. One red coloured Esteem car vehicle was standing nearby. The police party members accosted them. In the course of such incident, Sopan Chhagan Patil abused the police party members and assaulted police constable Narendra Chavan by means of a big knife (gupti). The police subsequently arrested him. On 25th June, 2009, said Sopan Chhagan Patil visited the office of Local Crime Branch. He threatened PSI Ramesh Warade (applicant No.2) that if proceedings under section 110 would be commenced against him, then he would commit suicide. He allegedly gave a fist blow on a glass panel of the cabin. According to the police version, said Sopan attempted to stab himself by means of a piece of glass and attempted to commit suicide. 3. When he was produced before the learned Magistrate, said Sopan gave a complaint of ill-treatment at hands of the police staff members including the applicants. On basis of inquiry conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, cognizance was taken and the learned Magistrate directed that the applicants be called upon to face the criminal case registered vide ( 4 ) RCC No. 532/2009. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP. Mr. Pawar appears for the original complainant and assists the learned APP. 5. The petitioners are police staff members and are unlikely to flee from justice. The earlier FIR was registered against said complainant Sopan Chhagan Patil on basis of report dated 28th March, 2009. It was alleged by police constable No. 1242 Pankaj Chavan that said Sopan mounted murderous assault on him by means of a gupti. The contention of the petitioners is that said Sopal Patil is a habitual offender. The allegations in the complaint of Sopan Patil would show that he was assaulted while he was in the police custody. The counter version is that he had been to the office of the Local Crime Branch and attempted to threaten the petitioner No. 2 and thereafter, made an attempt to commit suicide by using a broken glass piece which he got stabbed in his abdomen. The inquiry has been completed by the learned Magistrate and the process has ( 5 ) been issued. Obviously, nothing has remained to be done further. The petitioners are not likely to hamper progress of the inquiry/investigation in any manner. They are likely to be humiliated if arrested, particularly when the complainant i.e. Sopan Chhagan Patil appears to be a daredevil person who had assaulted a constable – Pankaj Chavan on the earlier occasion. The arrests of the petitioners is, therefore, not eminent and required for any effective investigation. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have rejected their application for anticipatory bail on the ground that the relief cannot be for unlimited period and has to be granted only till filing of the chargesheet. He referred to the case-law in “Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra” (1996) 1 SCC 667. The controversy in this behalf is resolved recently by the Apex Court in “ . The Apex Court held that there is nothing in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code to limit the period of such anticipatory bail. ( 6 ) 6. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to hold that the petitioners deserve liberty during pendency of the criminal case instituted against them. However, the liberty shall be conditional one. The application is, therefore, allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/-, each, with one surety in the like sum, if arrested, and on the condition that they shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN2612-09