:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2006 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2006 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2006 Pravin B. Patil ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. Manoj J. Bhatt for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Gadkari, APP for the Respondents - State. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, & CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, & CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, & V. K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2006 DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2006 DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2006 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner is involved in 14 cases under the MPID Act as per Exhibit ’D’, wherein the particulars of C.R. numbers, police station, amount of the surety is given. In all these cases, anticipatory bail is granted to him. His difficulty is that he cannot furnish surety in all the matters :2: and therefore he prayed that in case of arrest, he be released by the concerned Authority on execution of the P.R. Bond, so specified in Exhibit ’D’. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on unreported judgment of this Court (Coram (Coram (Coram : D.G. Deshpande & V. M. Kanade, JJ) dated : D.G. Deshpande & V. M. Kanade, JJ) dated : D.G. Deshpande & V. M. Kanade, JJ) dated 24.11.2005 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2578 of 24.11.2005 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2578 of 24.11.2005 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2578 of 2005 Dr.Umesh Marutisa Khade vs. The State of 2005 Dr.Umesh Marutisa Khade vs. The State of 2005 Dr.Umesh Marutisa Khade vs. The State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, wherein same facility was given looking to the number of cases involved against that petitioner. Therefore, same order, i.e. in case of arrest of the petitioner in C.Rs. mentioned in Exhibit ’D’, page 17 of the petition, by the concerned Police Station, the petitioner will be released on his P.R. Bond of the amount specified in Exhibit ’D’, or as per the order of the concerned court. 4. In prayer (c) in the petition, the petitioner has prayed for same relief in respect of different police stations in different Districts, as per Exhibit ’F’, but the counsel for the petitioner modified that prayer in the submissions and contended that if 13 police stations in Raigad District, named in Exhibit ’F’, register any offence :3: under the MPID Act, and under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. against the petitioner or M/s. Adhunik Grihanirman Vittya Corporation Ltd., and they decide to arrest him, they should give 72 hours notice. Since the prayer is restricted to one District only, the same can be considered, We, grant that prayer i.e. if any of the 13 police stations in Raigad District, named in Exhibit ’F’, decide to arrest the petitioner they will give 72 hours notice. 5. Petitioner to communicate this order to all the concerned police stations in Raigad District, named in Exhibit ’F’, by RPAD and this order will be effected only from the date of communication and on proof of acknowledgement by the petitioner. 6. Rule made absolute. 7. All concerned parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. 8. Certified copy expedited. (D.G. DESHPANDE, J. ) :4: (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)