1 62.11-aba bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2011 Dnyaneshwar Raju Thorve & Thorve Mama ..Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms.RevatiMohite Dera for Applicant. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : MARCH 18, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R.No. 369 of 2006 registered with the Bhosari Police Station, Pune. Perused the application along with its voluminous documents. 2. It is suffice to say that the factual position is definitely against the present applicant so far as asking for discretionary relief of anticipatory bail when the offence is of 2006 and in fact charge sheet has already been filed and in the charge sheet, the present applicant along with the then other co-accused were shown as absconding. Admittedly, as specified in the affidavit filed by Senior Police Inspector, Bhosari Police Station dated 28th February, 2011, a standing warrant is also pending against the applicant since September, 2009. 2 62.11-aba 3. It is a factual position that till today, the applicant has not been arrested. On this aspect, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that all along for these years, the applicant is attending his two medical shops and attended various public functions being a member of a political party in the locality. She further argued that, if at all such is a situation and still the police persons are not behind him, there is no role of the present applicant who is to be investigated by the Police by his custodial interrogation. 4. Per say, this argument cannot be accepted, as in the charge sheet which is already filed, there are ten eye witnesses who had assigned specific role as to the involvement of the present applicant in the offence of rioting and murder. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant that he is not yet been arrested, in fact, the matter needs to be referred to the higher Police Officials to deal with it. Suffice it to say that when this Court is seized of this matter for anticipatory bail, such discretionary relief cannot granted when apparently the name of the present applicant is taken by ten eye witnesses and a standing warrant is pending against him since the year 2009. 5. Under these circumstances, such discretionary relief of grant of pre-arrest of bail cannot be granted. Hence, the present application stands dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the present application for anticipatory bail, the earlier interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)