1 ABA 16 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2011. Mrs. Clita Sebastian D'souza, .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Rishi Bhuta, for the Applicant. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawaka, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 17th January, 2011 P.C. 1. The applicant who is of 61 years old, seeks anticipatory bail since she apprehends arrest in the offence of theft. It is alleged by the first informant a neighbour, whom she visited to enquire about health, thereafter the applicant had gone away with ornaments worth Rs. 1,61,500/-. The report of the incident was given 2 days after the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is not at all involved in such a theft. However, in order to show her bonafides, she will deposit a sum of Rs.1,61,500/- within a period of two weeks with the learned Trial Court. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that the applicant was the last person to visit the applicant's premises before theft was detected and reported 2 days after the applicant visited. Considering the nature of allegations made as well as the applicant's offer to deposit 2 ABA 16 OF 2011 the aforesaid sum, in the event of her arrest in CR No.669 of 2010, registered at M.I.D.C, police station, Andheri (E), Mumbai, she be released on bail on her furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.25,000/-: i) The applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,61,500/- within a period of two weeks with the learned Trial Court, which the learned Trial Court shall invest in the nationalized bank to earn maximum interest and shall deal with the same at the end of the trial as per result of the trial. ii) The applicant shall make herself available on 20.01.2011, at 10.00 a.m. for interrogation by Investigating Officer and thereafter as and when required Investigating Officer. iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. i) The order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if chargesheeted the 3 ABA 16 OF 2011 applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre -vs- State of Maharashtra and ors, in S.L.P No.7615 of 2009. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)