1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.206/2010 Applicants :- 1. Sureshsingh s/o Ramsingh Gaur, aged abut 66 years, Occup. Rtd. Addl. Supdt. of Police R/o B/2-B, Corpn. Colony, N.A. Road, Police Station Ambazari, Nagpur (City), (Mah.). 2. Dilip s/o Ramdas Kulkarni, aged 56 years, Occup. - Rtd. P.S.I. R/o Khantalao Road, Sanjay Gupte Wada, Police Station Bhandara (City), Bhandara, (Mah.). 3. Anandrao s/o Watuji Sontakke, aged about 60 years, Occup. - Rtd. P.S.I. R/o Bhiwapur Ward, Police Station Chandrapur (City), Chandrapur, (Mah.). ...Versus... Non-applicant :- The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Police Station Brahampuri, Distt. Chandrapur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri E.W. Nawab, Adv. for applicants] [Shri A.S. Sonare, APP for non-applicant] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 04.03.2010 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. Earlier this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the 2 applicants by order dated 12.3.2009 in Crime No.113/2008 of Police Station Brahmapuri under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that the applicants were directed to join the investigation the said order was made. It was also observed in that order in paragraph No.5 that liberty was granted in favour of the Investigating Officer to approach this Court, if the applicants do not co-operate and to apply for cancellation of bail. However, there is no application for cancellation of bail and hence, this Court will not be in a position to cancel the bail, which was granted by the said order dated 12.3.2009. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer added offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, having found the need thereof. After registration of these offences, the applicants have approached this Court by this separate application for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. In support of the application, learned Counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that there is no other reason why the anticipatory bail should not be granted in the added offences also. He filed affidavit of Sureshsingh s/o Ramsingh Gaur, stating that he attended with surety and Advocates in the office of Investigating Officer on various dates as shown in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit i.e. tendered today in this Court and thus stated that the allegations levelled against them are absolutely false about non-cooperation by the applicants. 4. To this, learned A.P.P. for non-applicant has shown me a statement which shows that on number of dates all the applicants have avoided to attend the office of the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Initially, the Investigating Officer had sent a constable asking them to attend the office of Investigating Officer, when he was told by the son and wife of applicant Sureshsingh that he was not at home. 3 Thereafter, postal correspondence by registered acknowledgment was made number of times but was not claimed by all the applicants. The envelopes showing 'not claimed' endorsements have been shown to me and I am satisfied that the applicants are hardly interested in cooperating with the Investigating Officer. 5. As a matter of fact this is a fit case for cancelling the bail even in respect of the earlier offences, for which this Court granted anticipatory bail. But there is no application for cancellation of bail and therefore I am not inclined to cancel the said order, granting bail. However, in the instant case the offences are serious and the record shows that the applicants have violated the earlier order of cooperating with the Investigating Officer. Hence, I am not inclined to grant prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in the present application. 6. Criminal Application is, therefore, rejected. The Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the applicants in custody. JUDGE SSW