1 ABA 54 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2011 1. Jaywant Pandurang Chavan, 2. Prashant @ Shankar Pandurang Chavan, 3. Amol Prakash Pawar, 4. Uttam Pandurang Gaud .. Applicants -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Shri. Shekhar Ingawale, advocate for the Applicant. Mrs, P. P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 20th January, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by four persons, who apprehend their arrest in Crime No.68 of 2010, registered with Chandgad Police Station, District: Kolhapur. The first informant had named two persons as involved in the offences punishable under Sections 341, 348, 363, 386 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Those two persons have been arrested and have been bailed out. In course of their custodial interrogation, they named the present applicants and that is the basis for the present applicants apprehending that they would be arrested. Learned APP has made available for my the case diary and the statement of 2 ABA 54 OF 2011 co-accused who named present applicants. The statement do not show that the present applicants had any specific role to play in the entire episode. In view of this, it not clear as to why the applicants should be subjected to custodial interrogation or would be required for the purpose of test identification parade. In view of this, the application is allowed, in the event of applicants' arrest, they be released on bail on their furnishing PR Bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- by each of them with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.20,000/- by each of them on the following conditions:- i) The applicants shall make themselves available on 24th January, 2011 at 11.00 a.m., for interrogation by Investigating Officer and thereafter as and when required Investigating Officer. ii) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. i) The order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if chargesheeted the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial 3 ABA 54 OF 2011 Court in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre -vs- State of Maharashtra and ors, in S.L.P No.7615 of 2009. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)