1 CA5049/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5049 OF 2011 Shrikant s/o Omprakash Suvarnkar Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Shri T.M. Venjane, Advocate for the applicant Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for the respondent / State Shri S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the complainant CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 12th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates of both sides including learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Jadhavar for the complainant. 2. The Court is informed that the present applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur bearing Bail Application No. 416 of 2011. Said application was filed on 10th November, 2011. The copy of order dated 10th November, 2011, passed on said application by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is 2 CA5049/2011 produced on record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, rejected the said application. It would be pertinent to note few lines appearing in the said order dated 10th November, 2011, they are as under : “Under such circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to grant interim anticipatory bail. The grant of interim anticipatory bail would certainly hamper the investigation. The application is therefore liable to be rejected in view of sub-Section (1) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the order.” A perusal of this order would go to show that the said order came to be passed on an application seeking interim anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, appearing on behalf of the complainant, upon instructions, stated that the main application filed by the present applicant for anticipatory bail is pending before the 3 CA5049/2011 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. This statement is recorded. If this is the position, surely this present anticipatory bail application cannot lie, because it is not open for the applicant to seek orders from two Courts at the same time, for the same relief. In view of this, the present application is not maintainable and disposed of accordingly. It is clarified that if the anticipatory bail application filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur is rejected, it will be open to the present applicant to attend the said matter in accordance with law. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) 4. Learned Advocate Mr. T.M. Venjane, appearing for the applicant and learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, appearing for the complainant, jointly mentioned this application at 02.30 p.m. for taking it on Board. In view of the joint request, present application was taken on Board. 4 CA5049/2011 5. Learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, appearing for the complainant informed the Court that the statement made by him in the morning sessions that main anticipatory bail application is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, is wrong. He further stated that the said statement was made out of misunderstanding. He confirmed that the anticipatory bail application filed by the present applicant bearing Criminal M.A. (Bail) No. 416 of 2011 has been decided by order dated 10th November, 2011. 6. Heard learned Advocates on both sides on account of the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Jadhavar. 7. A perusal of the order dated 10th November, 2011, passed below Exh. 01, in Criminal M.A. (Bail) No. 416 of 2011, goes to indicate that the applicant, who is equally applicant here in this matter, applied for anticipatory bail. He moved the Court for anticipatory 5 CA5049/2011 bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, considered the F.I.R. and came to the conclusion that interim anticipatory bail application is required to be rejected. Hence, he observed, what is mentioned in the first part of this order. A perusal of the same would go to show that he rejected the request of interim anticipatory bail, and thereafter, he came to the conclusion that the said application should be rejected and he passed an operative order thereby rejecting the application. Both the learned Advocates before this Court state that the main anticipatory bail application is rejected by an order dated 10th November, 2011, it is apparent that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur has not applied the normal procedure to dispose of the anticipatory bail application. 8. If a person applies for anticipatory bail and in the said application if he applies for interim anticipatory bail, the Court is required to pass appropriate orders and decide whether interim 6 CA5049/2011 protection is to be granted or not, and if not, the learned Judge has to post the said application for hearing on anticipatory bail application by passing short speaking order, that is to say, after hearing learned Advocate for the applicant as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State and after perusing the police papers, he has to come to the conclusion whether anticipatory bail should be granted or not. This procedure is not followed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, who passed the order dated 10th November, 2011. He was in error in rejecting the anticipatory bail application though he was applying his mind whether interim protection should be granted or not. This is apparent on the basis of the text of the order dated 10th November, 2011. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur is required to hear the applicant afresh on the question of grant of anticipatory bail after perusing the police papers and other material available before him and then decide the application on merit. Hence, following order is passed: 7 CA5049/2011 O R D E R A. Order dated 10th November, 2011, passed below Exh. 1 in Criminal M.A. (Bail) No. 416 of 2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, is set aside to the extent it has decided the anticipatory bail application. B. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, who had passed the order dated 10th November, 2011, shall hear the learned Advocate for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for the State, peruse the police papers and other material available before him and pass proper speaking order on the anticipatory bail application. C. The applicant to produce authenticated copy of this order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, who passed 8 CA5049/2011 the order dated 10th November, 2011. D. Within seven days from the production of copy of this order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur shall hear and dispose of the Criminal M.A. (Bail) No. 416 of 2011. E. In addition to the Writ of this Court, Registry of this Court shall forward a copy of this order to Mr. Suresh P. Shaiwale, Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, who passed the order dated 10th November, 2011. F. In view of the aforesaid order, this application cannot be entertained by this Court and is disposed of accordingly. G. It is clarified that if the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, rejects the application for anticipatory bail filed by 9 CA5049/2011 the present applicant, the present applicant is free to approach this Court in accordance with provisions of law. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/12/12/11