13crn1912-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1912 OF 2010 1. Shri Madan Gopal Tulsian, 2. Mr.Vikas Madan Tulsian, & 3. Ms.Avni Rana. ..Applicants. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, & 2. The State of Tamil Nadu. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Shounak Mehta, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 10th JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for transit bail. Said application was preferred before this Court on 15th April, 2010 apprehending arrest at the hands of local police i.e. Charkop police station, Mumbai. Copies of the summonses are annexed to the application at page Nos.9, 11 & 13. Apparently, all the three summonses 13crn1912-10 2 having same directions which read thus : "You are asked to appear before me for an enquiry on 15.04.2010 at my office in connection with the petitions given by the seven companies from Tiruppur. Sd/- Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Coimbatore City. " 2. On asking by this Court, the learned Advocate for the applicants could not answer as to what is the material apart from the allegations mentioned in ground (h) in the application and para at page-5, so far as his fear of arrest in any matter is concerned, at the hands of Charkop police station. On bare reading of the summonses served on the applicants, it appears that it is only a summons to remain present for enquiry on certain petitions filed by seven companies. 3. Under these factual positions, there is nothing to 13crn1912-10 3 consider that the fear of arrest is well founded. Infact it was open for the applicants to appear before the concerned authority which has called them for an enquiry in view of the summonses. However, instead of obeying such directions, this mode of preferring anticipatory bail application has been chosen before this Court and infact certain protection was obtained after filing of this application as not to be arrested without 72 hours prior notice in writing by the respondents. 4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present application for anticipatory transit bail and the same is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)