1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 749 OF 2010 Mr. Prabhu Tirthdas Aidasani & Anr. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent ... Shri A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ganesh Gole and Ms. Rashmi Gagwani, for the Applicant. Mr. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State. ... CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 10th March 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with the C.R.No. I-107 of 2009 registered at Murbad Police Station, Thane for an alleged offence punishable under sections-462, 380, 381, 411 read with section-34 of IPC. 3. The facts are rather peculiar. On registration of F.I.R. the applicants moved the Sessions Court for an anticipatory bail by filing the anticipatory bail application no.704 of 2009. By an order dated 9.12.2009, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application and 2 granted anticipatory bail subject to a condition that the applicants shall attend the concerned police station on every Tuesday and Friday between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. till investigation was over and would not tamper with the prosecution witness. It was also mentioned in the said order that it would remain in force for a period of 60 days, during which the applicants may apply to the court for regular bail within 60 days. The applicants accordingly applied to the Sessions Court for regular bail. By an order dated 8.2.2010, the learned District Judge-II and Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalyan, rejected the application for bail. It may be noted that when the application for bail was rejected, the chargesheet was not filed. I am informed that till date the chargesheet has not been filed. At the time of rejecting bail application, there were no material available before the learned Judge than the one available before him when anticipatory bail was granted. In the circumstances, it is unfortunate that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail but regular bail is rejected on the same material. Despite rejection of the bail application, the applicant has not taken into custody and the applicant has therefore applied to this Court for bail/anticipatory bail till the chargesheet is filed. 4. In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicants for some more time. 3 5. Hence, I pass the following order:- In the event the applicants are arrested in connection with C.R.No.I-107 of 2009 registered at Murbad Police Station, Thane, the applicants shall be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties of aggregate amount of Rs.25,000/-on the same terms and conditions initially imposed by the Sessions Courti.e. applicants shall attend the concerned police station on every Tuesday and Friday between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. till investigation is over. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution witness evidence. This order shall remain in force till the expiry of one week after the chargesheet is filed. After the chargesheet is filed, the applicants may, if they so desire, apply for regular bail and in the event if such application is filed within one week of filing of chargesheet the applicants shall not be arrested till the disposal of the regular bail application. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)