[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1318 OF 2008 Sou.Usha Sambhaji Patil ..Applicant Vs. The State of Mah. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1319 OF 2008 Mrs.Madhavi Goraksha Pawar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Mah. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1320 OF 2008 Mr.Ganpat Nanaso Patil ..Applicant Vs. The State of Mah. ..Respondents ... Mr.Nitin Pradhan along with Ms.Shubhada Khot Advocates for Applicants Ms.P.P.Shinde APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 21, 2008 DATE : JULY 21, 2008 DATE : JULY 21, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.69 of 2008 of Islampur Police Station, Dist. Sangli (now transferred to Local Crime Branch [-2-] Sangli). The said case is under Sections 420, 409 and 465 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3. The learned APP seeks time to take detailed instructions regarding exact role of the applicants. The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that before the Sessions Court, when the application for anticipatory bail by the applicants was heard, no notice was given to the APP and the Investigating Officer was also not present before the Court. He submitted that on account of this fact, many relevant documents have not been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. Mr.Pradhan submitted that these documents would show that the applicants are innocent. On perusal of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, it is seen that in fact, no notice was issued to the learned APP and the Investigating Officer was not present on that day. As stated earlier, today the learned APP sought time to take instructions as the papers are not with her and Investigating Officer is not present. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the meantime, the applicants may be protected. [-3-] 4. In my view, looking to the above facts, it would be appropriate that the applicants are given liberty to prefer fresh applications for anticipatory bail before the concerned Sessions Court. The concerned Sessions Court to hear the matters afresh and decide the same on merits. In the meantime, the interim relief granted by this Court, is extended till 31.7.2008. 5. Applications are disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]