IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1085 OF 2009 Mahendra S. Suryavanshi ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. Shri Deepak Shinde for Applicant Shri S.S. Pednekar, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 5TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant apprehends arrest in view of the complaint being registered against the Applicant and others for the offence punishable under section 498-A. 3. The Application for anticipatory bail was filed by the Applicant and others in the Sessions Court. An interim order was granted in favour of the Applicant's father, mother and brother. However, no interim order was granted in favour of the present Applicant and no reasons has been given as to why the anticipatory bail was not granted to the Applicant. 4. In my view, there is no reason why the interim order should not have been granted in favour of the Applicant pending hearing and final disposal of the application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court. 5. The allegation is for harassment and cruelty, which allegation is denied by the Applicant. In such cases where sometime section 498A are also not properly examined. It would be appropriate if in this case, the Court shall examine the case in detailed. 6. The Applicant, therefore, shall not be arrested in connection with sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered vide C.R. No.56 of 2009 at Phaltan Police Station, Dist. Satara pending the hearing and final disposal of the application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court shall not twist the facts in granting interim relief and shall decide the application on merits and in accordance with law. 7. Application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.