1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2854 OF 2010 1. Dilip Vitthal Ghodke, Age-40 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 2. Rajendra Vitthal Ghodke, Age-35 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 3. Sugriv Vitthal Ghodke, Age-35 years, Occu-Agriculturist, All are R/o.Ghodka Rajuri, Tq. and Dist. Beed. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.M.A.Tandale, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 30/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.115/2009, registered in Pimpalner Police Station. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Interim protection was earlier granted to these applicants on 23/07/2010. 4. Admittedly CR No.115/2009 was registered on the complaint of one Kalyan Bhanudas on 19/09/2009, about the alleged incident occurred in the evening of 18/09/2009. On the basis of that complaint, CR No.115/2009 was registered, in which present applicants are shown as accused. Admittedly, after arrest of these 3 applicants, they were released on bail by the concerned J.M.F.C. vide order dated 30/10/2009. It further appears that after completion of investigation in the said CR, charge sheet was filed against applicants on 29/12/2009. The applicants are enjoying the liberty as they were released on bail in connection with this crime, in which investigation is over. 5. One application was moved by the complainant to S.P. Beed on 16/10/2009 alleging that these applicants have committed certain 3 offences under the Atrocities Act. It further appears that after about 8 months, S.P. Beed has forwarded that application to the Investigation Officer, who had investigated CR No.115/2009, with directions to consider the facts disclosed in the said application. Then the Investigation Officer concerned has moved an application before J.M.F.C. Beed on 07/06/2010, and requested to allow him to carry out further investigation as per the provisions u/s. 173(8) of The Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the J.M.F.C. Beed on 08/06/2010, in which this Court did not find anything un-natural. 6. It is the grievance of the present applicants that after the order was passed on 08/06/2010, they are apprehending their arrest as directions were given to Investigation Officer to carry out further investigation in the said said offence. Hence, they moved an application before the J.M.F.C. to recall the order, which came to be rejected. It further appears that this order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Beed in Misc.Rev.Appl.446/2010, which prayer was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 14/07/2010, hence the applicants are before this Court for anticipatory bail. 4 7. Considering the legal parameters within which the police machinery have to carry out the investigation and to submit the charge sheet, Section 173 of Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure to be followed after filing of the charge sheet. Section 173(4) of The Cr.P.C. speaks for filing of the charge sheet, in case prima facie evidence find against the concerned, who are arrayed as an accused in the offence. Sub Section 8 of Section 173 of The Cr.P.C. further permits the Investigation Officer, with the permission of the concerned Criminal Court, to carry out further investigation after filing of the charge sheet, if certain facts came to his knowledge which require further investigation. There is no mandate of law to issue notice to the accused before granting permission to the Investigation Officer to carry out further investigation. Apart from various provisions under the Cr.P.C., once the applicants accused is released on bail, if his custody is required, then as per the rule of natural justice, it is necessary to give an opportunity by way of notice before his arrest. To that tune, submissions of learned counsel for applicants require to be accepted. 8. This Court has taken a serious note of the fact that even 5 though the application was moved before S.P. Beed on 16/10/2009 about the omission in the complaint dated 19/09/2009, since then for 8 months, the said application/report was ideally lying in the file before the concerned S.P. and after the span of 8 months, directions were given to carry out further investigation. For what reasons, the application was pending before the S.P. for about 8 months, better reasons are known to him, but the fact remains that in such circumstances, if arrest of applicants is required, it is necessary to give them time by way of notice before their arrest to be effected. Considering this legal aspect, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest during further investigation directed by the learned J.M.F.C.Beed. In the result, Application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 23/07/2010 is hereby confirmed in case of arrest of applicants is necessary, Investigation Officer to give notice before 48 hours to the applicants. In case such notice is given, applicants are at liberty to move the competent court for their release on bail, if advised. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri-appl-2854-10