1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2749 OF 2009 Babruvahan Pandurang Ronge .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the applicant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 24TH June, 2009 P.C. Heard Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mrs.Shinde, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with R.C.C.No.120 of 2009. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, while dealing with the application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant bearing Criminal Application No.166 of 2009 has allowed the application. The operative portion of the order reads thus: “The application is allowed. The applicant – Babruwahan Pandurang Ronge, in the event of his arrest in R.C.C.No. 120/09 pending before the J.M.F.C., 2 Pandharpur, for the offence punishable under sections 191, 193, 194, 195 of the Indian Penal Code, shall be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety of Rs.15000/- with personal bond of like amount. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not threaten any prosecution witnesses. The anticipatory bail granted to the applicant shall be for a period of one month from today. During the said period of one month he shall appear before the trial Court and file regular bail application.” 4. The application was filed before the Sessions Court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the order passed by the J.M.F.C., Pandharpur, dated 23.2.2009 in R.C.C.No.120 of 2009. By the order dated 23.2.2009 the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 191, 193, 194 and 195 of IPC. As a matter of fact it was not necessary for the applicant to file application for anticipatory bail since only process was issued by the learned Magistrate. It was also unnecessary for the learned Judge to entertain the said application and pass the order. Admittedly, no offence has been registered against the applicant so far. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the ends of justice 3 would be met by the following order: The order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Criminal Misc.Application No. 166 of 2009 is set aside. It is open to the applicant to contest the complaint bearing R.C.C.No.120 of 2009. It is also open to the applicant to file application for appropriate relief before the appropriate court if the occasion arises. With these observations this application is disposed of. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)