1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3058 OF 2008 Shri Vasant Ganpat Lokhande ...... Applicant. V/s Smt. Sundarabai W/d. Prabhakat V. Lokhande and Ors. ...... Respondents. ----- Mr Ashok Lakhia for the applicant. Mr. Vineet Jain i/b Mr. Jahangir Khojatia and Shashikant Parab for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ------ CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6th February, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – complainants and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail which was granted by the Sessions Court. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail taking into consideration only one fact i.e. pendency of civil suit at Junnar. He submitted that other allegations have not been taken into consideration. In the complaint it is alleged that respondents had given threats to 2 the applicant and have committed an offence punishable under section 406. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the anticipatory bail could not have been granted for indefinite period and the Sessions Court ought to have granted anticipatory bail for a limited period. In support of the said submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1996 SC 1042. 3. The learned APP has tendered a report which is given to him by the Investigating Officer in which it is stated that Police did not require the custody of the applicant for custodial interrogation since the charge- sheet has already been filed. 4. In my view, the submissions made by the Counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. The order of the trial court cannot be said to be perverse and, therefore, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the finding recorded by the trial court. Apart from that, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary even according to the Investigating Officer since the charge- sheet has been filed. Apex Court in Salauddin's case (supra) has observed that ordinarily bail should be granted for a temporary period only. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view, the Sessions Court was justified in not granting temporary bail to the applicant. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Sessions 3 Court since this Court is not sitting in appeal over the finding recorded by the trial court. 5. Application is therefore rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.)