cp183.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 183 OF 2010 Madhukar s/o Hausrao Kadam & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Y.S. Chaudhari, advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for respondents. ..... CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATED: 21ST MARCH, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The petitioners are making a grievance in respect of violation or the breach of the order passed by this Court in criminal application No. 3384 of 2008, at the hands of the respondent. While disposing of said criminal application seeking anticipatory bail, this court directed Investigating officer to issue a prior notice of 72 hours before effecting the arrest of applicants. It is the contention of the petitioners that before causing arrest on 18.4.2008, no such notice was issued by the Investigating Officer. cp183.10 -2- 2 An affidavit in reply has been presented on behalf of the Investigating officer, wherein he has specifically contended that the notice, as directed by this court while disposing of criminal application was issued to the petitioners on 15.4.2010. Copy of notice is annexed at Exhibit "R-1", which bears signature and thumb impression of the petitioners. Considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any breach of the order passed by this Court while effecting arrest of the applicants. Contempt petition is devoid of substance and stands rejected. ( R.M. BORDE. J.) rlj/