IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1284 of 2010 State of Maharashtra, through, P.S.O., P.S., Hudkeshwar, Nagpur. ..VERSUS.. Suryakant Gendasingh Thakur and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mrs. A.R.Taywade, A.P.P. for the applicant-State. Mr. Sunil Manohar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 24 th September , 2010 . Heard learned APP for the applicant-State and learned Advocate for the respondents. By the present application, the applicant State is seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the non-applicants by the order dated 21/1/2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur. The learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the non-applicants on certain conditions. It was observed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the custodial interrogation of the non-applicants was not necessary. Learned Advocate Mr. Manohar for the non-applicants submitted that anticipatory bail is granted to the non-applicants on 21/1/2010 and the present application has been moved by the applicant, seeking cancellation of bail, on 15/7/2010 i.e. after six months. Learned Advocate further submitted that no material is placed on record so as to show the necessity of custodial interrogation of the non-applicants. The grounds raised in the application and the material available on record were already placed before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and on consideration of the material, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that no custodial interrogation was necessary. Learned Advocate further submitted that no fresh material is placed on record to support the contentions of the applicant and the application deserves to be rejected. It is not the case of the investigating agency that the non- applicants refused to cooperate with the investigating agency. Apart from this, learned APP is also unable to show any breach of the conditions imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the non- applicants while granting anticipatory bail by order dated 21/1/2010. In view of above discussion, I find considerable merit in the submissions of learned Advocate for the applicant. I find no reason to show indulgence n the application. In the result, the criminal application is rejected. JUDGE Diwale