..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.750 OF 2008 Shri.Sandeep Raghavji Gala. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.P.Kadam, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.S.V.Marwadi, Adv. for respondent No.2. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 26st November, 2008. DATED : 26st November, 2008. DATED : 26st November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant - orig.accused, the learned Advocate for respondent No.2 - orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant came to be granted anticipatory bail by order dated 18.8.2006 in M.E.C.R. No.14 of 2005 of L.T.Marg Police Station. The said C.R. is under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code. According to the Investigating Agency after investigation they have come to the conclusion that the offence under Section 409 is also made out, hence ..(2).. they preferred an application for cancellation of bail before the trial Court i.e. before the learned C.M.M., 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. On receipt of the application, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the applicant by an order dated 27th February, 2006. Thereafter the applicant appeared before the Court and the learned Magistrate by an order dated 10.4.2008 directed the applicant to remain present before the L.T.Marg police station for further investigation during 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. from 11.4.2008 to 16.4.2008 and to cooperate with the investigating officer for further investigation. By the said order, the earlier notice came to be disposed of. Thereafter the investigating agency again preferred an application before the learned Magistrate on 14.8.2008. In the said application the investigating agency prayed for cancellation of bail and they sought custody of the applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant states that pursuant to the application by the investigating agency, again notice has been issued to him similar to the order dated 27th February, 2008. Being aggrieved by the said notice, this application has been preferred. ..(3).. 3. In my view, it is seen that only notice has been issued against the applicant. It would be open to the applicant to point out all relevant facts before the Court, and at this stage,I am of the opinion that it would be premature to interfere. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere. However, in case the Magistrate after hearing necessary parties comes to conclusion that the custody of the applicant would be necessary in such case, three days time be given to the applicant to surrender or to prefer appropriate proceedings challenging the order of the learned Magistrate. 4. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)