1 ABAG-240.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.240 OF 2011 (for Anticipatory Bail) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.267 OF 2011 Asif Abdullah Khan .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Kuldeep Patil i/b Prashant Hagare for the Applicant. Ms G.P. Mulekar, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: APRIL 06, 2011 P.C: 1. The applicant in both these cases apprehends arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 385 of the IPC. The applicant runs a local newspaper and the allegation is that the applicant threatens persons to put defamatory articles in the newspaper unless the victims agree to pay the sum demanded. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.68 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by putting a condition that the applicant shall attend the 2 ABAG-240.11 police station concerned. He had also applied for anticipatory bail in Crime No.65 of 2011 where he had been granted interim bail. On 14-3-2011 the learned Judge granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.68 of 2011 but rejected the application for anticipatory bail in Crime No.65 of 2011 observing that the applicant had failed to abide by the condition of reporting at the police station. The learned counsel for the applicant is right in submitting that since another offence was registered, the applicant was apprehensive in reporting at the police station and, in fact, in both the cases, at one point or the other, the learned Judge had admitted the applicant to anticipatory bail. Therefore, merely because the applicant had failed to report to the police station apprehending arrest in another crime in which he was yet to receive any interim protection from the Court, his bail applications were rejected. Considering the nature of the allegations made, it is not clear as to what the police seek to achieve by subjecting the applicant to custodial interrogation. Thus, both the applications are allowed in spite of strong objection of the learned APP since the learned APP points out that the applicant is involved in similar 3 ABAG-240.11 offences since 1983 and furnishes a list of such crimes. In the event of the applicant's arrest in C.R. Nos.65 and 68 of 2011, both registered with Baramati City Police Station, District Pune, the applicant be released on bail in both the crimes on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.1,00,000/- per crime on the condition that the applicant shall report at the police station concerned on 11-4-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O., without any excuse including the excuse that another offence has been registered in which he apprehends arrest which may be separately dealt with. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 2. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicant may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in 4 ABAG-240.11 view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 3. The applications accordingly stand disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)