1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1404 of 2010 with Criminal Application No. 1405 of 2010 and Criminal Application No. 1406 of 2010 Aditya; Sudhir and Nilesh v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R.M. Daga, Advocate for applicants Mr S. Bhagde, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 3.9.2010 1. Applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 99/10 registered with Police Station, Wadgaon, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Main accused Vijay and Ravi disclosed while they were in police custody that they had committed theft of cash and ornaments at the place of complainant and that they have sold jewelery to these applicants who are jewelors, running their shops at Yavatmal. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor who filed common reply before the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal made it clear that no offence has been registered against any of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of this specific reply, anticipatory bail should not have been refused to the applicants. I do not agree with this submission. When no offence has 2 been registered against the applicants so far, application is prematurely filed and it is disposed of as such. However, the Investigating Officer is directed to give 48 hours’ prior notice to the applicant (s) if he thinks it necessary to cause arrest of the applicants or anyone of them, mentioning details of crime reported against them. 4. It is astonishing to note that despite specific say of the Additional Public Prosecutor that Police Station Officer, Wadgaon has not registered any offence against the applicants, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal (Shri C.P. Chaudhary) has observed in his order dated 1.9.2010 that custodial interrogation of the applicants is essential for the progress of investigation. This Court is further taken aback to observe from the operative part of the order dated 1.9.2010 where the said Additional Sessions Judge concludes by saying that the order of ad-interim anticipatory bail passed below exhibit 2 in favour of the applicant is set aside. It is common knowledge that when one and the same Court does not affirm ad-interim or interim order made by it earlier, it vacates the same and does not set it aside since that Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. 5. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to serve copy of this order upon Shri C.P. Chaudhary through the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Yavatmal with a direction that he shall be careful in future. Application is disposed of accordingly. Judge. joshi