1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.331 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Subhashchand Tarachand Agrawal and others RESPONDENTS Mr.D.R.Kale, learned A.P.P. for applicant. Mr.R.S.Shinde, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/11/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant straightway approached this Court for cancellation of order of bail passed in favour of the respondents by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Cri.Bail.Application no.39/2005, in connection with Crime No. 21/2004, registered in Muktainagar Police Station vide order dated 31/01/2005. 2. From the record, it appears that this application was filed on 03/02/2005. Record shows that Rule was issued by way of order dated 20/06/2005, returnable 2 weeks. While issuing a rule, directions were given to the respondents to remain present for interrogation in the concerned police station. It is observed in the 2 order dated 05/07/2005 that the directions were given to the respondents to make themselves available for interrogation. But it was informed to the Court by the Investigation Agency that liberty may be granted to make the investigation at different places like Badwah, Indore and Mumbai. Again the directions were given to the investigation agency that if the Investigation Officer intends to interrogate the respondents and intends to take the respondents at these places, then to give 72 hours notice to respondents. Thereafter, it appears that this application do not appear on board. 3. Considering the fact that the respondents were released on bail vide order dated 31/01/2005, i.e. about 6 years back, there is every likelihood that after this order was passed, the respondents were co- operating the investigation agency as no further report was received that there was no co-operation on the part of these respondents during the course of investigation. Considering the long period since the order of bail was passed in favour of the respondents, it is not desirable to curtail their liberty. Bearing in mind this aspect, now nothing remain in the application and do not warrant any interference in the order impugned dated 31/01/2005. In the premise, application stands dismissed. Rule discharged. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV. 2010/cri.appl.331-05