IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3696 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.3696 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.3696 OF 2007. The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. versus Jagannath Gattu Waidande & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for the Applicant. Mr.Pradeep S. Gole, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 24TH JULY,2008. : 24TH JULY,2008. : 24TH JULY,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP appearing for the applicant and the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. The F.I.R. has been registered against the respondents alleging the commission of offences under sections 498A, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents applied for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ’the said Code’). By judgment and order dated 2nd June 2007, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Satara allowed the application filed by the respondent by passing the following order :- . "The application is allowed. Of their arrest in C.R.No.208/07 under - 2 - section 498-A and 306 read with 34 of IPC of Satara City Police Station, the applicants be released on P.R. and S.B. of Rs.25,000/- on conditions that they would co-operate the Police int he matter of the investigation and when called and they should not temper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. The accused/ applicant shall furnish the particulars of their movable and immovable property on affidavit within 7 days from the date of their release." 2. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has invoked powers of this Court under section 482 of the said Code for quashing the aforesaid order. The learned APP submitted that the death of the deceased was caused due to poisoning and investigation was progress. He submittd that the prosecution could not have been denied an opportunity of having custodial interrogation of the respondents. He submitted that apart from this aspect, the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to operate for an indefinite period in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the - 3 - respondents supported the impugned order. He pointed that the police were determined to arrest the respondent and therefore, after grant of anticipatory bail, proceedings under section 107 of the said Code were initiated against the respondents and the respondents were arrested in the said proceedings. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The F.I.R. has been registered against the respondents on 17th May 2007. The order granting the anticipatory bail was passed on 2nd June 2007. It is not the case of the applicant that the respondents have not co-operated in the matter of investigation. There is no allegation that the respondents have misused the order granting the anticipatory bail. 5. It will be necessary to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Sunita Devi v/s. State of Bihar [(2005) 1 SCC 608]. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that the protection under section 438 of the said Code cannot be extended beyond what was laid down in Salauddin’s case [(1996) 1 SCC 667]. In the case of Sallauddin (supra), the Apex Court held that the order granting anticipatory bail should be of a limitation duration and on the expiry of that limited duration, it is for the regular court to deal with the matter. - 4 - 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the order dated 2nd June 2007 will have to be modified by directing that the same will apply only till the date of filing the charge sheet and after filing of the charge sheet, it will be open for the respondents to apply for the appropriate relief before the appropriate court. 7. Hence, the application is disposed of by passing the following order :- . (1) The order dated 2nd June 2007 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in criminal misc. application no.265/2007 is modified by directing that the anticipatory bail granted by the said order will operate only till the charge sheet is filed. As and when the charge sheet is filed, it will be open for the respondent to move the appropriate court for appropriate relief. . (2) There will be no orders as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]