1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2713/2008 (Suresh V. Bonageri .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate h/f Mr. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for applicant, Mr. A.S. Sonare, APP for non-applicants/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J DATED : FEBRUARY 08, 2011 Heard. By this application preferred as early as on 23.7.2008, the applicant has made a composite prayer for granting anticipatory bail in event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.24/2008 registered with Jalalkheda Police Station and so also Crime No.70/2008 registered with Ganeshpeth Police Station both for offences under Sections 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, under section 9(1), 18(1)(c) of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 10 (4-A) & 15(2) of Insecticides Rules, 1971. Learned APP made a grievance that this application is unnecessarily remained pending in spite of the chargesheet being submitted by Jalalkheda Police Station in Crime No.24/2008 on 31.5.2010 and by 2 Ganeshpeth Police Station in Crime No.70/2008 on 3.6.2010. Learned APP further urged that the applicant has already secured order of regular bail in his favour from the Court of JMFC with regard to Crime No.70/2008 of Ganeshpeth Police Station. Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly conceded with the said position but submitted that this application was not deliberately kept pending but had remained pending because the applicant had also preferred another application and this application was tagged with the said application. Learned counsel further urged that during the pendency of this application, the applicant was granted interim protection vide order passed on December 17, 2008 until disposal of this application. Learned counsel further urged that having regard to the said fact and having regard to the chargesheet being filed, hardly there would be any necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant, he may be permitted to withdraw the application, but the interim protection granted may be extended for a period of 7 days to enable him to appear before the trial court and pray for the regular bail. Learned APP stated that he is leaving the matter to the discretion of this court. After considering the lateron happenings and having regard to the fact that the chargesheet is submitted in both the crimes and the applicant is protected up-till this date, the request made by him deserves consideration and particularly considering his case on the basis of the guidelines given in paragraphs 122 to 125 by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam 3 Satlingappa Mhetre .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2010 (12) Scale 691. In the premises aforesaid, the application stands disposed of as withdrawn. The applicant to appear before the trial Court on or before 15.2.2011 for the purposes of seeking regular bail. The interim protection granted to continue till 14.2.2011. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE Gulande