1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 59 AND 60 OF 2009 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 59 OF 2009 Shri E. Prasanna Kumar, son of late T.V.C. Nambiar, 43 years old, Senior Manager, Indian National, permanent resident of House No.406/128, PDA Colony, Alto Porvorim, Bardez-Goa. ... Petitioner versus 1. Shri A. A. Sharma, Senior Investigation Officer, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, West Block VIII, Wing No.VI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, also through Public Prosecutor. 2. Union of India, through Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, West Block VIII, Wing No.VI, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, also through the Public Prosecutor. ... Respondents CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 60 OF 2009 Shri Rajkumar Saraf, son of late Jugal Kishore Saraf, 64 years old, businessman, Indian National, permanent resident of Saraf House, V. P. Road, Choupati, Mumbai and resident of E-19, Sanchayani Anant Vishwas Aquem Alto, Margao-Goa. ... Petitioner 2 versus 1. Shri A. A. Sharma, Senior Investigation Officer, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, West Block VIII, Wing No.VI, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, also through Public Prosecutor. 2. Union of India, through Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, West Block VIII, Wing No.VI, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, also through the Public Prosecutor. ... Respondents Shri S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Shri Pavithran A. V. Shri J. Vaz, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER Heard Shri S. G. Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners and Shri J. Vaz, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondents. 3 2. The Petitioners herein, by Order dated 23-7-2009 were granted anticipatory bail. However, that Order was to remain in force for six weeks. Apprehending that upon expiry of the said period of six weeks, the Petitioners would be arrested, the Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing and/or setting aside the said stipulation which states that the Order would remain in force for six weeks. 3. Till date, the Petitioners have not been arrested and the investigations are in progress, and as per the learned Central Government Standing Counsel another two months time would be required to complete the same. 4. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel submits that the anticipatory bail was wrongly granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge upon coming to a prima facie conclusion that the Petitioners have not committed any offence of evading excise duty on the goods manufactured by the company of the Petitioners based on a Judgment of ITI Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Excise & Customs, Calicut(2009(233) E.L.T. 277) and also without considering the subsequent amendment. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel further submits that the said observation needs to be corrected. 4 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Order dated 23-7-2009 admitting the Petitioners to anticipatory bail has not been challenged by the Respondent and therefore there is no question of correction of any observation made therein. 6. Petitioners' only grievance in this petition is that after the expiry of six weeks they would be arrested. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners has placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in Prashant Kishor Mehta v. State of Maharashtra(MANU/MH/0370/2008) wherein referring to a decision of the Apex Court in K. L. Verma v. State and another(MANU/SC/1493/1998) it was observed that anticipatory bail ought not to enure till the end of the trial but it must be for limited duration and that the regular Court cannot be by-passed and it was ordered that the anticipatory bail ought to enure till the regular Court decides the application for grant of bail and for a week thereafter so that if that regular Court refuses bail, the accused person can move the higher Court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the statement made that the investigations will be completed within a period of two months or so, the condition stipulated by Order dated 23-7-2009 that the Order would remain in force for a period of six weeks is hereby modified in that now the Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge will remain in 5 force till a complaint is filed and one week after the regular Court decides the matter of bail of the applicants. With the above observations and directions the petitions are disposed off. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD