IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3491/2007 [Sadashiv Vishwanath Lanje vs. State of Mah and another] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 7 th JANUARY, 2008. O R D E R Heard Shri H.M.Bobde, Advocate, for the applicant, Smt. Wasnik, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 State and Shri A.S.Dhore, Advocate, for Respondent No.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is claiming the relief of direction to Respondent No.1. to initiate legal action against Respondent No.2 by way of arresting him in view of the fact that he has been accused for the offence punishable under Section 306, 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.151/2007. 3. It is the case of the applicant that he had lodged report against the respondent No.2 and his parents for the aforesaid offences. Then an application for grant of anticipatory bail was moved by Respondent No.2 as well as his parents before the Sessions Judge, Bhandara. During the proceeding of that application, the order of grant of interim anticipatory bail was passed. The said order was for granting interim relief only to applicant No. 2 Pandurang Sadashiv Maske and applicant No.3 Sou. Kumudini Pandurang Maske i.e. the parents of respondent no.2. It is his further contention that thereafter final order was passed to confirm the interim order and therefore, according to him, there was no order in favour of Respondent no.2 regarding anticipatory bail, as such Respondent No. 1 was duty bound to arrest Respondent no.2 and as he has not been arrested, the applicant is claiming that relief in the present application. 4. The learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 has made a submission that in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the Respondent No.2 was arrested and he has been released on bail and therefore, now there is no question of his fresh arrest for the aforesaid offences. 5. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has contended that the order of anticipatory bail was passed in favour of respondent no. 2. Accordingly, he was arrested and released on bail and therefore, the present application is not maintainable. 6. On perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the first order of interim anticipatory bail dated 23.10.2007 had directed the release of Applicant No.2 Pandurang Maske and Applicant No. 3 Sou. Kumudini Pandurang Maske i.e. parents of Respondent no.2 on ad-interim anticipatory bail. The said order further makes clear regarding issue of notices to Sakoli Police and P.P. as to why anticipatory bail should not be granted to applicant Nos. 1 to 3. Therefore, it appears that the notice was issued as to why the applicant no. 1 i.e. the present respondent no. 2 should not be granted anticipatory bail. 7. While passing the final order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that, “after going through the case diary and the record, at this stage, it is difficult to infer that the applicants were instrumental in abetting the suicidal death of the deceased Vanita. Mere statements of the complainant and others would not ipso-facto prove that the suicide was abetted by the applicants”. He has further observed that it was not the say of the learned P.P. that custodial interrogation is necessary. He further observed that ad-interim anticipatory bail granted in favour of the applicants can be confirmed and thereafter he proceeded to pass the order regarding confirmation of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 8. No doubt, there is some discrepancy in the interim order as well as the final order as regard applicant no.1 i.e. the present respondent no.2, the fact remains that in the final order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail inasmuch as it was difficult to infer that the applicants were instrumental in abetting the suicidal death of the deceased, so also the custodial interrogation was not necessary and substantial part of investigation has been completed. Nothing is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant to show that the case of the present Respondent no. 2 is distinguishable from the case of the other applicants in that proceeding, so as to make out a case that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had infact on consideration of the merits of the case opined to reject the application of present respondent no.2 for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. In view of the fact that the learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 has stated that in pursuance to the said order, the respondent no. 2 was arrested and released on bail, the prayer of the applicant does not have any merit. 10. Hence, this application will have to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. 11. In the circumstances of the case, the liberty is granted to the applicant to move for appropriate relief, if necessary, in future. Rule is discharged. JUDGE Rvjalit