1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1468 of 2010 Pradeep v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr A.S. Band, Adv for applicant Mr A. Parihar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 16.9.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for State. Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 147/2010 registered with Police Station, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been implicated falsely on the suspicion alone and that he has played no role muchless an active one in the present crime. He submits that main accused have already been released on bail. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not at all necessary. 3. Learned APP has opposed the application. 4. It is borne out from record that the applicant was involved in a murder case and that the cases under the MCOCA are pending against him. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed 2 into service ruling in Mohammad Yakubdin Khan v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001 All MR (Cri) 1892 where it is held that when the main culprits are already arrested and released on bail, applicant, whose custodial interrogation is not necessary, is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. In the present case, however, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary even though co- accused have been released on bail. Moreover, in Mohammed Yakubdin’s case (supra), it was contended that the applicant therein had withdrawn his surety for accused no. 1 and therefore he was involved falsely in the case. This is not the position in the case at hand. Looking to the past criminal instances attached to the applicant, possibility of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence and hampering the further investigation cannot be ruled out. This is not, therefore, a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Application stands rejected. Judge. joshi