1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2054/2010 ( Dr. Nandkishor Jagannath Gandhi .vs. State of Maharashtra ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2011 Heard. The applicant apprehending an arrest in connection with Crime No.58/2010 registered with Malkapur Police Station (Rural) for for commission of offence under Sections 306 of IPC and Sections 32 and 33 of Bombay Money Lenders Act has prayed for a direction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant was protected for the reasons recorded in the order dated 31.12.2010 in which amongst other reliance is placed upon the decision delivered by this Court in Criminal Application No. 2553/2009 (Santosh Nathumal Goenka and one .vs. State of Maharashtra through PSO City Kotwali, Akola) on 6.10.2009. The reference to the said decision and particularly the matters stated in paragraph no.8 reveals the view being taken that the demands made for return of amount lend by itself 2 cannot be construed as an act constituting abetment within the meaning of Section 107 of I.P.C. In addition to the said decisions, the learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgments of similar nature reported in 1997 (1) Crimes 499 ( Pallem Deniel Victor @ Victor Hanter and ors. .vs. State of A.P.) and 1995 Cri. L.J. 893 ( Vedprakash .vs. State of M.P.). The learned APP has fairly submitted that the allegations against the applicant for a crime under investigation is of similar nature as that of the decisions relied. In addition to the same, the learned APP has also not pointed out any particular circumstance justifying custodial interrogation of the applicant. Needless to add that the learned APP was not able to show any concrete material regarding the date, time and place at which the signatures of the deceased were allegedly taken by the applicant on blank stamp paper. Having regard to the same, the interim protection granted in favour of the applicant deserves to be confirmed as the same is unlikely to hamper the investigation which is said to be in progress. Hence the interim protection is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions except with a modification of applicant now attending the I.O. on every alternate day for a period of 7 days and thereafter on every Monday until filing of the charge sheet. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE 3 halwai