1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1989 OF 2010 Indrasing S/o.Bakatsing Girase, Age-69 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Chimthane, Tq.Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Police Inspector, Sindkheda Police Station, Dist. Dhule RESPONDENTS Mr.Joydeep Chatterji h/f. Mr.A.B.Girase, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.V.A.Shinde, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 15/06/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in connection with CR No. 26/2010, registered in Sindkheda Police Station. 2. Initially the application was moved before the Vacation Judge on 25/05/2010 and interim protection was granted to the applicant, which is in force till today. 2 3. When today the application is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for applicant drawn my attention towards the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule on the application moved by the present applicant bearing no.724/2010, which was disposed of by the said judge with one line order, “there is no provision to extend benefit of bail before arrest in Atrocity Act (SC/ST Act, hence filed.” Thus the fact is clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, has not even taken the pain to pass the detailed order, as to why the application is “filed”. In the eye of law, this is not a reasoned order. 4. View is taken by this Court in the matter of Pravin Shriram versus State of Maharashtra, while deciding Cri.Application No. 314/2010, vide order dated 04/02/2010, wherein it is observed that even though there is bar u/s. 18 of The SC and ST Act, exception is made out to consider the application for anticipatory bail. On perusal of the allegations in the complaint or in the papers of investigation, if it is brought to the notice of this Court that no prima facie offence is made out under the provisions of Atrocity Act, then the Court can exercise the discretion u/s. 438 of The Cr.P.C. to entertain the application. It appears that without considering the latest view taken by this Court or higher courts, simply by one line order, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule has “filed” the application, which is abuse of process of law. 5. In view of this, by consent of the parties and without entering 3 into the merits of the bail application, the application to be disposed of by remitting back to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, with a direction to decide the application within a period of 1 week from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Application is remitted back to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhule to hear afresh on merits within the period of 1 week from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 3. Till then, interim protection granted on 25/05/2010 to continue. 4. In case, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule goes against the applicant, then this protection to continue for the period of 2 weeks thereafter, enabling the applicant to approach this Court. 5. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.1989-10