1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 236 /2010 [Satish @ Galla s/o Vithhal Wankhede vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr R M Mardikar, Adv. for applicant Mr A S Fulzele, APP for Respondent State .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : MARCH 10, 2010 . Heard respective counsel, at length. 2 By an interim order dated 26th February, 2010, the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail, particularly because the learned Advocate for the applicant pleaded that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the serious offence of robbery and that he had made representation to the District Superintendent of Police Washim in order to initiate action against certain persons because the brother of the present applicant had died in the incident and applicant was insisting upon State Government and various authorities to take action against offenders who were involved in murder of brother of present applicant. Thereafter the incident of alleged robbery was reported which was committed by unknown persons at Washim Police Station. The police officers who were aggrieved by the representations made by the applicant were trying to implicate the present applicant without any basis and on this ground,the 2 learned APP was required to file reply. 3. Perused the reply. In paragraph 6 of the reply it is contended that the charge-sheet in that case has already been filed against three accused and administrative action against the Investigating Officer in that crime is also taken as also against Police Station Officer, Washim. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no basis at all for ground pleaded in the anticipatory bail application. For this reason as also the reasons stated regarding requirement of investigation in the crime of alleged robbery, I think decision as to bail must be left to the regular court concerned. The interim anticipatory bail which was grnated on 26th February, 2010 is therefore extended until 22nd March 2010. The applicant shall approach the Investigating Officer on or before 22nd March 2010, surrender himself to the custody and then may apply for regular bail on merits. In order to enable the applicant to approach the I.O. concerned, the interim anticipatory bail is extended until 22.3.2010. If the present applicant approaches the I.O., he may apply for appropriate remand order from the regular court; while the applicant may move application for regular bail on merits, which the regular court shall decide on its own merit in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to approach the I.O. on or before 22.3.2010, the benefit of anticipatory bail shall expire automatically without further reference to this Court. Application is disposed of. 3 4. Steno copy, free of cost, be given to learned APP. Humdast granted. JUDGE sahare