1 ABA-911.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.911 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} 1. Smt. Manesha Paatil 2. Pradeep Rasiklal Jani .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri J. Shekhar i/b M/s. J. Shekhar for the Applicants. Ms P.P. Bhosale, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 14, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by a purchaser of a property and the person who identified the vendors while purchasing the property by a registered document dated 20-10-2010. One of the vendors  Sushila Jayram More  was in fact not present at the time of execution and her sister-in-law Shantabai Krushna Dhavde impersonated. She was identified by applicant No.2 Pradeep Rasiklal Jani. Thereafter, applicant No.1 executed a cancellation deed in respect of the document dated 20-10-2010 where too the parties were 2 ABA-911.11 identified by applicant No.2 Jani. Sushila More filed a report with the police on 17-7-2011 on which investigation has started after registering an offence. 2. The applicants approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail by filing Application Nos.72 and 73 of 2011. These applications were allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, District Raigad, by order dated 1-8-2011. The learned Judge, in para 4, had observed as under: ... Now the very short point is involved before me that, Investigating Officer wanted signature and thumb impressions of the persons so as to verify who remain present before the Sub- Registrar, at the time of execution deed as well as cancellation deed. Definitely for short exercise custodial interrogation is not necessary is not necessary for the simple reason that if the applicants are directed to remain present in the police station on 02/08/2011 for giving their signatures and thumb impressions will suffice the purpose and therefore, as stated earlier custodial interrogation is not necessary though the offence has been registered against them. So this request appears to be reasonable looking to the offence registered against them. With this I pass 3 ABA-911.11 following order. Yet he directed that the order shall remain in force only for 15 days, disregarding the observations of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 312. If according to the learned Judge all that was to be done was obtaining the signatures and thumb impressions of the persons concerned and if he felt that custodial interrogation was not necessary, there was no need for him to limit the duration of the order to 15 days. 3. Thereafter, the applicants approached the learned Judge again by filing Application No.78 of 2011. The learned Judge observed that, while deciding the earlier application a condition was put that the applicants have to co-operate with the investigating officer and they have to remain present before the investigating officer as and when called for. He made these observations on 24-8-2011. Eventually he found that the applicants were not co-operating with the investigating officer in helping him to secure the presence of Madhav Vilas Burgute. The very idea of the investigating officer expecting the accused to 4 ABA-911.11 co-operate with him is, to say the least, funny. The investigating officer should himself find out where the co-accused are and because the co-accused are not found, he cannot expect persons who had been granted bail to be lodged in custody. The application is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the learned Judge on 1-8-2011 shall stand revived and shall remain in force, in view of the observations in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre s case (supra), till the trial is over with the additional condition that the applicants shall report to the investigating officer on 21-11-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the investigating officer. 4. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)