FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.515 OF 2010 Shakuntala Sattappa Pitale Vs. State of Maharashtra _____________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Coram, appearances, Court s orders : ’ or directions and Registrar s’ : Court s or Judge s orders ’ ’ orders : _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr.A.A.Joshi for applicant Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 9th February 2010. PC :­ 1. Heard. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant accused, who has been enlarged on bail, apprehending arrest. His application being Crriminal Misc.Application No.305 of 2009 is allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur on 22nd September 2009. The operative part of the order reads thus:­ This relief of anticipatory bail granted to “ the applicant No.4 Shakuntala Sattappa Pitale, shall be in force till filing of charge sheet or for a period of two months from today whichever is earlier” 3] From a bare perusal of the order it is apparent that the learned Judge committed error in restricting the period for two months from 22nd September 2009. In fact the learned Judge has in his order directed the applicant to approach the trial court for regular bail but while clarifying this aspect has restricted the period. In my view, there is apparent error and the learned Judge should have granted pre­arrest bail till the charge sheet is filed and, threafter, it would have been open for the applicant to appear and seek regular bail. 4. This is the limited grievance and, therefore, the order is clarified and it is directed that the pre­arrest bail shall remain operative till charge sheet is filed, whereafter, the applicant can move an application for regular bail. Application disposed of accordingly. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)