1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2973/2009 (Bhimrao Balchandra Bodade vs. State of Maharashtra) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. .......................................................................................................................................................... Mr H M Mohta, Adv .for applicant Mr Anup Parihar APP for Respondent -State CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE,J. DATED: 06 th August, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.81/2008 reported at Telhara Police Station, District : Akola for offence punishable under sections 498A, 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 2nd September, 2008 by Bhimrao Sakharam Gavai. The complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased on the ground that there was cruelty by her husband and in-laws and as the result of which, the victim had committed suicide by burning herself. 3. It appears that earlier Additional Sessions Judge, Akola by order dated 9th September, 2008 had granted anticipatory bail by a reasoned order observing that due to dying declaration, custodial interrogation of the applicant was not necessary and that false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out because of seven days delay in lodging the complaint from the date of the incident. Under these circumstances, when the applicant was already granted anticipatory bail vide Misc.Cri. Application No.136/2008 such anticipatory bail once granted must be held to be operative till the conclusion of the trial unless it is cancelled u/s 439. The Madras High Court in the case of Natturasu and others vs. State 1998 Cr.L.J. 1762 (Madras ) in para no. 189 (4) has laid down thus : 2 “ (4) The moment a person is released on bail, in the event of arrest, in accordance with the directions under section 438, it should be deemed as if it was a bail granted under section 437 or 439 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it shall be in operation until the conclusion of trial, unless it is cancelled by the appropriate Court under section 437(5) or 439(3) Cr.P.C. As the purpose of bail is to make the accused to face the trial.” 4. It appears that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Akot by order dated 27.7.2009 while considering the application u/s 439 for grant of bail rejected the application of the present applicant and was directed to be taken in custody and remanded to jail for a period of 14 days and furthermore was directed to be produced before the learned JMFC Telhara till the case is committed to the Court of sessions. It does appear that learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed in post-script as follows :; “ As per the pursis (Exh.9) filed by learned Advocate for the applicant -accused ; Shri H M Mohota, the accused no.1 Bhimrao who was present before the Court till 2.30 p.m., has left the Court and run away even though he was asked to wait till the orders are passed and communicated to him. Thus, after surrender, he has escaped from the lawful custody of the Court and liable for action, accordingly.” 5. Under these circumstances, I think the applicant must approach the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot for cancellation of warrant against him and may adduce explanation and advance submission on the point of law. Application is rejected. JUDGE. sahare