1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 363 OF 2010 Mukesh Lakshmichand Dedhia ........Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & ors........Respondents. Mr. Sameer Vaidya i/b. Madhukar Dalvi adv. for the Applicant. Mr. A.S. Shitole APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 15th February, 2010. P.C.: 1. This application has been filed challenging some of the conditions in order dated 6-1-2010 passed by ad-hoc additional Sessions Judge, Sewree thereby granting anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 2. The applicant along with his brothers have been charged for the offence punishable under sec. 135 read with 152 of the Electricity Act. Though the petitioner has approached this court seeking quashing the said proceeding by W.P. No.178/2010 the said challenge failed. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is not residing in the flat bearing no.601 and that the said flat is occupied by his wife and children. It is further submitted that a criminal case has been filed by his wife against the petitioner for the 2 offence under sec,. 498-A IPC. It is therefore submitted that the condition which requires deposit of Rs. 2 lacs is also not sustainable in law. 4. The learned APP vehementally opposed the application and submitted that since the Division Bench of this court rejected the writ petition field by the present applicant, no case is made out for interference in the present matter. 5. The contention of the applicant that the flat in question is being occupied by his wife is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the proceedings initiated at the behest of the wife of the present applicant under sec. 498-A IPC are pending with the same police station. Therefore, I am of the view that the condition which requires deposit of amount of Rs. 2 lacs i.e. towards the penal charges for the period during which the petitioner was not occupying the flat, would not be just and proper. In so far as the proceedings for recovery of the amount are concerned, the BEST would always at liberty to take proceedings in accordance with the law. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the application by quashing and setting aside the condition no. (ii) and (vi) of the order impugned in the present petition. Needless to say that the present applicant would be required to comply with the rest of the conditions in the said order. (B.R. Gavai, J.)