:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1096 OF 2005 Sujata Randeep More .. Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Peter Lobo for Petitioner. Mr. D.R. More, APP for Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.S. PARKAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. S.S. PARKAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. S.S. PARKAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. Date Date Date : September 27, 2005. : September 27, 2005. : September 27, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard both sides. Mr. More, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State, states on the basis of the instructions according to him received by him from Sunil Pawar, Investigating Officer, that since all other accused have been granted anticipatory bail in this case and the investigation is almost complete and the charge-sheet is likely to be filed within a short time from today and the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of interrogation as the investigation has been done on the basis of the documentary evidence, the prosecuting agency has no objection if the petitioner is granted bail. In view of the above, the learned Advocate :2: appearing for the petitioner does not press prayer clause (a) and (b) for quashing of the F.I.R. 2. In view of the above statement, the petitioner is granted bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, each in the sum of Rs.1 lakh. The petitioner is also directed to report to the police before filing of the charge-sheet if and so required by the police for the purpose of interrogation. 3. The Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition keeping all the contentions raised in this petition open. 4. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn as prayed. (S.S. (S.S. (S.S. Parkar,J.) Parkar,J.) Parkar,J.) (Anoop (Anoop (Anoop V. Mohta,J.) V. Mohta,J.) V. Mohta,J.)