1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2044/2010 ( Prabhakar Bapurao Chaudhari .vs. State of Mah. Through PSO PS Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. V.N. Morande, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MARCH 10, 2011 Heard. By the present application, the applicant apprehending an arrest in connection with Crime No. 71/2010 registered with Police Station Aheri for commission of offence under Sections 420, 409 read with 34 of IPC, has prayed for a direction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant was protected in terms of order passed on 12.1.2011. The said protection was thereafter continued. While continuing the protection granted to the applicant, certain conditions were imposed such as attending the I.O. to facilitate the completion of investigation of a crime which has taken place during the period 2006 to 2010. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the report has been lodged regarding the acts allegedly committed 2 by six persons including the applicant. It is urged that the acts allegedly committed by the applicant are restricted to the period from 30.6.2006 to 11.2.2007. He has further submitted that having regard to the same and the record regarding the offences allegedly committed being not in his custody as he has already handed over the charge in the year 2007 and he has so far cooperated with the investigation, the protection granted to him be confirmed. Though the learned APP was not able to controvert the relevant facets pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP has stated that the investigation is in progress and in the event of the involvement of the applicant being found involved in commission of offences for the amounts more than one mentioned in the FIR, the prosecution may be granted liberty to take appropriate steps for cancellation of the bail granted. Having regard to the aforesaid peculiar situation, conduct of the applicant, nature of the evidence pertaining to the offence committed and thus presently the custodial interrogation of the applicant being not found necessary for any particular reason, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant deserves to be considered in view of the guidelines given by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre .vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 691 in paragraphs 122 to 125. Inform the Investigating Officer of said crime that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the said crime, he shall be forthwith released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- 3 with two sureties in like amount and subject to the conditions that applicants : (i) shall continue to attend the I.O on every Monday and on the day on which he will be called by I.O. by sending SMS on his mobile number to be forthwith furnished by him; (ii) shall not , directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation levelled against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Police Officer; (iii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the application and shall not change the same without permission of the Court; (iv) shall not commit any offence while being on bail granted vide this order. Prosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail in accordance with the law. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE halwai