( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3354 OF 2008 Shankarrao Vithalrao Raut APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. B.N. Magar, advocate holding for Mr. J.V. Deshpande, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. Mr. S.J. Salgare, advocate holding for Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for respondents No. 2 to 7. Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for respondents No. 9 to 11. Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent No. 12. .... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2517 OF 2007 Sarjerao Bolhaji Shinde & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESONDENTS .... Mr. S.J. Salgare, advocate holding for Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. Mr. B.N. Magar, advocate holding for Mr. M.A. Kandharkar, advocate for respondent No. 2. .... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3247 OF 2007 Bhanudas Eknath Kotkar APPLICANT VERSUS ( 2 ) The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS .... None for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. Mr. B.N. Magar, advocate holding for Mr. M.A. Kandharkar, advocate for respondent No. 2. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. All these three (3) applications were decided to be considered together. By order dated 23rd August, 2010, they were adjourned by way of last chance and have been scheduled for hearing today. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Salgare, holding for Smt. S.S. Jadhav and Mr. Magar, holding for Mr. J.V. Deshpande, would submit that the matters may be adjourned because the respective advocates are unavailable due to their personal difficulties. The requests of both the advocates holding for the concerned advocates are rejected for the simple reason that on 23rd August, 2010, the adjournment was granted by way of last chance. Such express "last chance" in the order of this Court will become nugatory and only farcical if further adjournments are granted without any substantial reason. When ( 3 ) such adjournment is sought by way of last chance, it is the duty of the advocate/s to make alternate arrangement if he/she is unable to attend the matter. That has not been done in the present case. 3. With the assistance of learned APP and learned advocate appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 13 in criminal application No. 3354/2008, I have considered the crux of the matter. 4. It appears that applicant Shankrrrao Raut had filed various complaints alleging that the respondents No. 2 to 13 conspired with each other and committed culpable homicide of Pintya alias Dattatraya, who was his son. He alleged that he is invalid and suffering from heart disease and his son was abducted on 30th June, 2001 and was done away with. The respondents No. 2 to 13 have been released on bail in anticipation of their arrest as per section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The applicant - Shankarrao Raut has, therefore, filed criminal application No. 3354/2008 for revocation of the orders passed by this Court on 5th April, 2007 in criminal ( 4 ) applications No. 3975/2006, 3982/2006, 4001/2006, 4063/2006, 1/2007 and 55/2007 whereby the anticipatory bail was granted to the said respondents. 6. The other two (2) applications have been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the FIR lodged by applicant Shankrrao Raut. 7. The learned APP has placed on record report of the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) of Crime Detention Branch, Ahmednagar which prima facie purports to show that the investigation did not reveal any tangible material so as to file chargesheet against the respondents No. 2 to 13 named in the criminal application No. 3354/2008. The investigation did not show any material which could be used to infer complicity of the persons named in the FIR and, therefore, "C" summary report is filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate. It appears that present applicant i.e. Shankarrao Raut has opposed grant of "C" summary and has filed protest application in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. 8. Considering the intervening developments which have occurred between the relevant period of about four (4) years, ( 5 ) the cancellation of anticipatory bail is prima facie unwarranted and uncalled for. So also, when the Investigating Officer has filed "C" summary report, the other two (2) applications also are not required to be decided on merits. The report filed by the Dy. S.P. is taken on record and marked "X". The learned Magistrate is, however, at liberty to take appropriate action and pass necessary order in the context of the "C" summary report and the protest application. 9. In view of foregoing discussion, all the above three (3) applications are dismissed and disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3354-08-group