1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1126 of 2009 ( Sudhir Ashok Shukla vs. State of Maharashtra ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S V Sirpurkar Adv.for applicant Mrs S S Wandile, APP for R-State. Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J. Dated : 21st July, 2009 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By means of this application, the applicant under the apprehension of his arrest in respect of Crime No. 92/2009 for offences punishable under sections 420, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Ramnagar Police Station Chandrapur, prayed for anticipatory bail. 3. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the name of the applicant did not figure anywhere in the FIR bearing No. 92/2009, which was lodged by Madhav Daulat Avaghad, an employee of M/s Shriram Finance. The learned Advocate for the applicant also alleged that Investigating Officer has filed a false affidavit and sought to controvert that affidavit; while according to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the name of the applicant 2 has figured in the course of investigation and the Investigating agency is in possession of material, so as to connect the applicant with the said crime, which is under investigation pursuant to the FIR reported in this case. 4. The application is pending since 21st March, 2009 in this Court. It appears that interim anticipatory bail was granted on 8th April, 2009, subject to condition that the applicant shall provide personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand ), with further condition that he shall report to the Police Station Ramnagar at Chandrapur, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer, for the purposes of investigation and with further condition that he shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. Considering the fact that prima facie an investigation into serious accusations is in progress and the applicant has already been directed to attend the Investigating Officer for the purposes of investigation since 8 th April, 2009, there would be no useful purpose served at this stage to examine the merits of the accusations as investigation is still incomplete. This may be left to the appropriate remand Court to examine the material collected during the course of investigation and also to examine the prayer of the applicant for bail if application is made for that purpose before the remand Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, if such a application is preferred. 5. In proceedings under section 438 of the Cr.P.C, prayer can be granted for limited duration on the expiry of which, the 3 accused can formally surrender before the regular Court and apply for bail. The regular Court can deal with the matter on examining material placed before it, after the investigation has made some progress. 6. An useful reference can be made to the ruling in Salauddin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1996 SC 1042, which makes it clear that the regular Court cannot be by-passed and date may be fixed for continuance of the period of bail and the date of its expiry, so that accused can move for bail before the regular Court, which can examine material and the nature of evidence against the applicant. 7. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the applicant states that the applicant will surrender before the regular Court within the period of protection. Hence the following order is passed :- The applicant may surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur, on or before 4th August, 2009 and upon surrendering, may apply for bail. The application moved accordingly, be considered by the learned JMFC in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard. The learned JMFC concerned may allow the applicant to remain on bail before the bail application can be disposed of on its own merit considering the material collected during the course of inquiry. I.O. be informed accordingly. 4 Humdast granted. Steno copy allowed. Judge. sahare