1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.509 of 2010 [Atmaram J. Navghare Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.Rahul Kurekar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 05th April, 2010. 1. Earlier application, namely Criminal Application No. 270 of 2010, for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant was rejected by this Court by order dated 17th February, 2010. 2. The applicant has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Perused the Case Diary. 5. According to learned Adv. Mr. Kurekar, the ground on which earlier application was rejected was that the investigation was in progress. 6. According to learned Adv., for applicant:- [a] Now the investigation has advanced substantially and it 2 would not be necessary for the police to arrest the applicant and ask for a remand to custody of police for any interrogation. [b] A person would be entitled for anticipatory bail, if, in the circumstances as obtaining at relevant time,, it would not be necessary for the police to secure the police custody of the accused. 7. This Court has scrutinized the submissions. 8. The question to be considered at the time of decision on the application for anticipatory bail is whether the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail, as he has shown that prima facie he is not involved in the commission of crime in which he apprehends the arrest, and not whether in the event of arrest and on production of accused before the Magistrate, the Police would be entitled to ask for a police custody. 9. The question to be considered in an application for anticipatory bail is also whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be wholly unnecessary to arrest the accused and put him in the peril of loss of liberty. 3 10. In the background of each case, it would be competent on the part of police to decide to cause the arrest of an accused. Whether, in event, the Magistrate would be satisfied for granting Police Custody Remand, would always be considered by the Magistrate when any accused is arrested and produced before him. 11. In the facts of the present case, offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code by itself is serious and is an offence against the system and the society. The question is not whether the police is likely to exercise the power to arrest. Question really is whether a person, who has used criminal force against a Public Servant, would be entitled to protection by way of anticipatory bail and the answwer has to be in negative. 12. In the result, applicant is not entitled to the relief by way of anticipatory bail. 13. Application is, therefore, rejected. Judge |Hedau| 4