1 Appln 3611-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3611 OF 2010 Central Bureau of Investigation .Applicant V/s. Tinku Singh alias Gurjit Singh .Respondents & anr. Mr.Mandar Goswami, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.M.S.Mohite, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mrs.Geeta Mulyekar, APP, for Respondent No.2  State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 23RD AUGUST, 2010 P.C. . By this Application, CBI seeks cancellation of order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nashik in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.949 of 2010 on 7th August, 2010 granting bail to Respondent No.1. The Respondent is Complainant s brother-in- law. The Complainant was married to Accused No.1 on 19th February, 2006 and on 10th January, 2007 a male child was born. On 18th January, 2008, Accused No.2 i. e. Father-in-law of the 2 Appln 3611-10 Complainant snatched the male child and ran away. It is alleged that Respondent No.1 is an accomplice in the said act. Whereabouts of the child and father are not known. A Division Bench of this Court is monitoring the progress of investigation in Criminal Writ Petition No.877 of 2008. Respondent No.1 was arrested on 21st May, 2008 and on the same day was hospitalized. On 13th June, 2008, on discharge he was admitted to bail. On 1st May, 2009, investigation was transferred to CID and on 8th July, 2009, it was transferred to CBI whereupon CBI has recorded their fresh F.I.R. The bail granted to the Respondent was cancelled by the Sessions Judge on 7th November, 2009 on the application of CID. On 28th July, 2010, CBI arrested the Respondent and produced him before the Sessions Judge on 29th July, 2010 where after on 6th/7th August, 2010, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order. 3 Appln 3611-10 2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Sessions Judge should not have admitted the Respondent to bail since the Respondent was required by CBI for custodial interrogation. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with this aspect in the order passed by her on 6th August, 2010. She has observed that as held by the Supreme Court in C.B.I, Spl. Investigation Cell v/s. Anupam J. Kulkarni, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1762, such custodial interrogation could be restricted only to the first 15 days and after expiration of first 15 days further remand could only be in the judicial custody. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sri Byrraju Ramalinga Raju & anr. Vs. The State through Central Bureau of Investigation has considered the Judgment of the Supreme Court in C.B.I, Spl. Investigation Cell v/s. Anupam J. Kulkarni and had still 4 Appln 3611-10 authorized remand of Raju to CBI custody. However, this was in the context of the fact that the complicity of Raju for which custody was required was in a different transaction. 4. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that no case for any custodial interrogation of the Respondent had been made out. 5. This takes me to the question whether the learned Judge was right in admitting Respondent to bail. The Respondent is alleged to have only abetted or helped his father who snatched away the child. In any case, since the Respondent cannot be remanded to custody of CBI, whether he remains in jail or is admitted to bail can make no difference to the investigation. The learned Judge while admitting Respondent to bail has imposed appropriate conditions which would take care 5 Appln 3611-10 of all apprehension of the Applicant. However, as desired by the learned Counsel for the CBI, instead of accused attending CBI office once a fortnight, he could be asked to attend CBI office twice a week. On Monday and Thursday from 11.00 to 2.00 P.M. for the first month and thereafter, as directed by the learned Sessions Judge once in fortnight, i.e. on every 2nd Monday between 11-00 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. till the charge sheet is filed. Thereafter, the Respondent would abide by the order that may be passed by the Trial Court. With this modification in the bail order, the Application is disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)