{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3084 OF 2010 Ramprasad Tukaram Dabhade APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. A.T.Kanawade h/f Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22nd October 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. By the present criminal application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.139/2010 registered with New Mondha Police Station, Parbhani. 3. It appears that interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2010. 4. Learned APP has shown me a notice received to the Investigating Officer from the advocate of the applicant. It is stated in the said notice that applicant should not be called for interrogation in the police station. The Investigating Officer has also been threatened that if the applicant is called in the police station the IO would have to suffer its consequences. {2} 5. The very purpose of granting protection u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that unnecessarily liberty of the accused should not be curtailed. However, at the same time, it is expected that the accused has to cooperate with the investigating agency. In the present case if the applicant is bold enough to extend threats to the Investigating Officer of consequence in case the applicant is called for interrogation, then this itself amounts interference in the investigation. Thus, it appears that the attitude of the applicant is that of non cooperation to the investigating agency and to extend threats to the investigating officer due to grant of interim protection in favour of the applicant. If this is an attitude of the applicant only when he has been granted interim protection, then not to speak of him after the protection is confirmed. In the premise, the applicant is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this Court. Therefore, without considering the application on merits only on the ground that threats have been extended to the IO, the application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Interim protection granted in favour of the applicant stands vacated. The Investigating Officer is directed to take steps in accordance with law for necessary action against the applicant. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3084-10