1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) No. 136/2011 ( Kanhaiyalal Bhanvarlal Borana and ors. .vs. State of Mah. through PSO PS Ajni, Nagpur. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.A. Jaiswal, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. B. Ahirkar, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MAY 06, 2011 Heard. At the hearing of this application, the learned counsel for the applicants has prayed for withdrawal of the application made on behalf of applicant no.1 to enable him to surrender before the trial/remand Court and to apply for regular bail and till then protecting him. The prosecution has no objection. In view of the same, the application made on behalf of applicant no.1, is disposed of as withdrawn. The applicant no.1 as informed to surrender before trial/remand Court on or before 14.5.2011. The applicant no.1 in meanwhile shall attend the I.O. everyday in between 11 a.m. and 12 noon for the purposes of investigation, shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted 2 with the facts of the accusation levelled against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the I.O., shall stay at the address mentioned in the application and shall not misuse the order for fleeing away. In view of the aforesaid, I.O. not to take any coercive steps against the applicant no.1 till 14.5.2011. Liberty to applicant no.1 to apply for regular bail before the appropriate forum. With regard to the application made by applicants no.2 and 3, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 15.4.2011 they have been protected by an ad-interim direction in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. After considering the prosecution reply and the fact of the deceased Nilima had committed suicide not at the marital house but at the house of her parents, it is difficult to perceive that custodial interrogation of the applicants no.2 and 3 would be required for the purposes of completion of investigation. Needless to add that no such a case has been spelt out from the reply nor such a specific submission by pointing out certain material has been urged by the learned APP. In view of the same, the ad-interim direction given vide order dated 15.4.2011 stands confirmed on same terms and conditions. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE halwai