- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2653/2010 1] Bakaram Fatesingh Gavit, age 42 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Visarwadi Tq.Navapur Dist.Nandurbar. 2] Shri Suresh Fatesingh Gavit, age 35 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Visarwadi Tq.Navapur Dist.Nandurbar. 3] Bipin Kailas Gavit, age 34 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Dhorpada Tq.Navapur Dist.Nandurbar. 4] Anil Kailas Gavit, age 30 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Dhorpada Tq.Navapur Dist.Nandurbar. 5] Ashok Arjun Gavit, age 32 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Khadaki Tq.Navpur Dist.Nandurbar. 6] Gabarya @ Sanjay Ashok Kokani, age 20 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Visarwadi Tq.Navapur Dist.Nandurbar. 7] Shri Mahendra Girdharilal Jat, age 35 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Visarwadi Tq.Navapur Dist.Nandurbar. ...Applicants.. Versus - 2 - The State of Maharashtra, through Visarwadi Police Station. ...Respondent... ..... Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for applicants. Shri S.G. Nandedkar, APP for respondent. Shri M.C. Syed, Advocate for the original complainant. ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATE: 28.07.2010 PER COURT: 1] By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 61/2010 registered in Visarwadi Police Station. 2] The applicants were protected by interim order dated 12.7.2010. 3] Today when the application came up for final hearing, I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP for the State and counsel for the original complainant. - 3 - 4] Considering the submissions across the Bar and perusal of the record, certain facts can not be disputed. The applicants have moved anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, for their release on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.61/2010 registered in Visarwadi Police Station, which application was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, vide order dated 20.5.2010. Protection was granted to the applicants till 27.6.2010 while passing the final order in that anticipatory bail application. It is to be noted that during pendency of this application, no complaint was made before the learned Additional Sessions Judge about misuse of the liberty granted to them. It is a matter of record that as the protection was granted to the applicants till 27.6.2010, it appears that another application was moved by the applicants on 25.6.2010 for extension of the protection granted till 27.6.2010. It appears that initially the extension was granted till 1.7.2010, while the application was rejected finally on 3.7.2010 on the ground that the applicant no.4 in this application had moved this Court, but the fact was concealed from the Additional Sessions Judge and on the ground of suppression of material facts, that application came to be rejected. 5] During the course of submissions across the Bar, my attention is drawn towards the common order passed by the Bench of this Court on 4.6.2010 in Criminal Application No.1937/2010 and Criminal Application No.2061/2010. Both the applications were disposed of by one common order. Perusal of the order dated 4.6.2010 clearly demonstrates that the application filed by the applicant no.4 - 4 - in this criminal application vide Criminal Application No.2061/2010 was moved before this Court to assist the learned APP and was not moved before this Court for the relief to release on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest. It is recorded in para 6 of the said order as under: “Learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 2061/2010 fairly not pressed the criminal application. The Criminal Application No.2061/2010 is dismissed as not pressed.” So far as Criminal Application No.1937/2010, of which fate was decided in the common order, was relating to the offence in which the anticipatory bail application was moved by the applicants before the trial Court and that application was not filed by the present applicants. It appears that without going through the entire record, in a confused state of mind, the order came to be passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, while rejecting the application moved by these applicants vide his order dated 3.7.2010. 6] This Court is required to take a note that once the order is passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on merits, there are no allegations about the misuse of the liberty in favour of the applicant, in spite of that, if that order is granted for the limited period and application was moved for the extension of the protection, under some misunderstanding, that application came to be rejected and hence the present application is required to be allowed, not on merits, but only on the ground that the application of these applicants was already allowed by the Court below, - 5 - but the extension was refused. In view of this, following order. 7] Application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 12.7.2010 is hereby extended till filing of charge-sheet. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V. Potdar, J.) ndk/cr2871018