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 WRIT PETITION NO.1679 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1679 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1679 OF 2008. Shri Dharmarao Baba Atram. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.M.S.Mohite, Virendra Maurya & Chaitnya Pendse, i/b.Sachin U. Dhakephalkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 14TH AUGUST,2008. : 14TH AUGUST,2008. : 14TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Not on board. Taken on board. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an application before the Sessions Court at Pune seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as he was anticipating arrest for commission of certain offences under the Forest Act, 1927 and the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. An application for grant of interim anticipatory bail was made by the Petitioner. By - 2 - order dated 13th August 2008, the said application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This order is challenged by the Petitioner by invoking section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that the application for anticipatory bail is now kept for hearing on 19th August 2008. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner based on two decisions of this Court is that by keeping the main application for anticipatory bail pending, the learned Judge could not have rejected the application for interim protection. He urged that if the leaned Judge was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, he ought to have rejected the main application itself. His submission is that as main application for anticipatory bail is kept pending, the Petitioner cannot approach this Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail. He submitted that he has received a notice from Sub-Divisional Forest Officer calling upon him to remain present for inquiry on - 3 - 18th August 2008 and therefore, the Petitioner apprehends that he will be arrested. The submission is that the main application for anticipatory bail is pending and even before the same is heard, the Petitioner may be arrested. 4. I have heard the learned APP for the State. 5. Prima-facie it appears to me that the procedure followed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Maharshtra v/s. Narendrasingh Rajput [1994(3) Bombay Cases Reporter 348] and in an unreported decision of this Court. Hence, the Petitioner deserves to be protected for the time being. 6. Hence, I pass the following order :- . (i) Till the application for anticipatory bail made by the Petitioner is heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, the Petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the C.R.No.1/2008-2009 registered by the Forest Conservator, Saswad, subject - 4 - to compliance with the following conditions :- (a) The Petitioner will remain present for inquiry before the Inquiry Officer on 18th August 2008 at 11.30 a.m; (b) The Petitioner will personally remain present before the learned Sessions Judge on 19th August 2008 when the application for anticipatory bail is kept before the learned Sessions Judge; and (c) The Petitioner will comply with clauses (i), (ii), (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. . (ii) The learned Sessions Judge will decide the application for anticipatory bail as expeditiously as possible and preferably on the same day. . (iii) It is made clear that the learned Sessions Judge will decide the application for - 5 - anticipatory bail without being influenced by grant of limited protection by this Court. . (iv) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. [ A.S.OKA, A.S.OKA, A.S.OKA, J.] J.] J.]