jpc aba569-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL PPLICATION NO. 569 OF 2011 1. Vipin Ratilal Purohit 2. Shyam jaswantrai Hemrajani ... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Senior Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit III, CB., C.I.D. Mumbai in C.R. No.4/11)... Respondents Mr. Madhukar Dalvi, for the applicants Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 1st July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Dalvi, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP for the State. 2. By consent, taken up for final hearing, forthwith. 3. The applicants have filed two separate anticipatory bail applications in the Court of Sessions at Mumbai and the same are pending. 4. Mr. Dalvi, the learned advocate for the applicants, submits that the anticipatory bail applications are pending since 24th June, 2011 before the learned Sessions Judge and, on two occasions adjournments were sought by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in-charge of the matter. Mr. Dalvi submits that the adjournments were duly granted, on two occasions, by the Court, on the prayer of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the applications have now been kept for final hearing on 8th July, 2011. 5. The grievance of Mr. Dalvi is that though twice adjournments were jpc aba569-11.sxw 2 granted at the instance of the Additional Public Prosecutor, no interim protection was granted to the applicants. Consequently, the applicants were facing a danger of being arrested though their prayer for anticipatory bail was not turned down by the Court. He submits that when the prosecutor was seeking an adjournment, it was necessary for the prosecutor to state that the applicants would not be arrested in the meantime, and if that was not happening, then the Court should have protected the applicants by an interim order of anticipatory bail. 6. I agree with the learned advocate for the applicant. Certainly, when the Additional Public Prosecutor, in-charge of the matter, is seeking adjournments, the time granted by the Court cannot be utilised for effecting arrest of the applicant, who has approached the court for anticipatory bail. 7. To prevent the possible abuse of the process of law and in the interest of justice, the present application is, disposed of as follows: Since the adjournments have been granted at the instance of the Additional Public Prosecutor and as the applications are to be heard by the learned Sessions Judge on 8th July, 2011, it is directed that the applicants should not be arrested in the meantime. They shall, however, remain present before the Sessions Court on 8th July, 2011 and shall also attend the Office E.O.W. and make themselves available for investigation/interrogation in the meantime, if so required by the Investigating Officer. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)