( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2219 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2219 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2219 OF 2007 Sai Balram Dharamdasani .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.A.P.Mundargi i/b.M/s.Lalla & Lalla for the applicant. Mr.M.Janardhanan for original complainant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2227 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2227 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2227 OF 2007 Raju alias Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Girish Kulkarni for the applicant. Mr.M.Janardhanan for original complainant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Mr.Rajkumar Mohandas Savani filed a complaint with the police alleging therein that the aforesaid two applicants in the company of one Mr.Thakurdas Baharani and one person unknown to him kidnapped him on 26.5.2007. This Court is informed that the said complainant could be traced at a later point of time and the question whether the present applicants have committed an offence of kidnapping and other related offences was required to be investigated by the Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar vide C.R.No.I-113 of 2007. The present applicants i.e. Sai Balram ( 2 ) Dharamdasani and Idnani moved this Court for anticipatory bail by these two aforesaid applications. Across the Bar, this Court is informed that by an order dated 10.7.2007, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the present applicants and since then, the present applicants are enjoying the facility of the said interim anticipatory bail. 2. Today, when the applications were taken up for hearing, learned A.P.P. Mr.Dedhia appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the allegations against the present applicants are serious and custodial interrogation of the present applicants is necessary primarily to trace the whereabouts of the co-accused Mr.Thakurdas and one unknown person as also to elicit more information from the applicants as regards the particulars of the car in which the original complainant was put in and taken away. The learned Advocate Mr.Janardhanan supported the arguments advanced by the learned A.P.P. Mr.Dedhia and submitted that merely because the applicants have been able to secure the interim anticipatory bail cannot be a ground to pass an order in their favour and police must get full opportunity to interrogate the applicants by way of custodial interrogation and that is how the applications should be rejected. ( 3 ) 3. After having considered the entire record which was before the Court in the nature of text of application, statements of various persons and affidavits, the complexion of the matter has changed on account of tracing of the original complainant Mr.Rajkumar Savani. It is true that across the Bar, it was mentioned by the learned A.P.P. Mr.Dedhia that Mr.Rajkumar Savani has rendered a statement to the police involving the present applicants Mr.Thakurdas and one unknown person. Even if, this statement is accepted as it is, the question before this Court is whether after elapse of about 10 months, the present applicants should be denied the benefit of the provisions of anticipatory bail, particularly when the investigation remains to be completed only on two counts, namely; arrest of Mr.Thakurdas and one unknown person and getting more details about the car in which the original complainant was kept. 4. According to Mr.Dedhia, the applicants are not co-operating in this aspect of the matter when they were called at the police station for investigation and as such the State should be enabled to custodial interrogation by rejecting the applications for bail so as to effect the arrest of Mr.Thakurdas and one unknown person whose details are not clearly made out and the custodial interrogation of the present ( 4 ) applicants is necessary as to in which car the complainant was carried from one place to other by the present applicants and co-accused as alleged by the complainant, their custodial interrogation is required. Now that the abducted person has been traced out, the custodial interrogation of the present applicants for the purposes argued across the Bar is not necessary. It is also pertinent to note that there is no grievance coming from the State that during the time when the applicants have been enjoying the benefit of the order dated 10.7.2007, the applicants have indulged in some illegal activities, disentitling them from getting the benefit of the provisions of the anticipatory bail. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to both the applicants. Hence, I pass the following order :- a) Each of the applicants in the aforesaid two applications are granted anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-113 of 2007 of Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar. b) In the event of arrest of each of the applicants, the said applicants be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one ( 5 ) surety in the like amount. Each of the applicants shall execute P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-. c) Each of the applicants shall report to the concerned police station on every Thursday between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet. d) This order shall operate in favour of the applicants till filing of the charge-sheet and 15 days thereafter to enable them to move the Court for regular bail. 6. Both the applications stand disposed off in the above terms. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)