IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1964 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1964 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1964 OF 2008 Sanjay Laxman Dhivre ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.G.V.Bhagat for the Applicant Mr.Jayesh Yagnik for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 25th June, 2008. DATED : 25th June, 2008. DATED : 25th June, 2008. P.C. 1. Mr. Yagnik, learned APP for the State states that I.O. Mr. S.V.Kardile, presently attached to Ulhasnagar Police Station is present. 2. This application is filed for modification of the Order dated 30th April, 2008 passed in Criminal Application No.166 of 2008. In the said Criminal Application No.166 of 2008, on 1st February, 2008 an Order was passed granting interim protection and it was ordered that the said Order would come to end on the next date or on the chargesheet being filed, whichever is earlier. This Criminal Application No. 166 of 2008 came up before me on 30th April, 2008 and on that date learned Advocate Mr.A.R.Pitale had made a statement -2- before the Court that chargesheet against the applicant is filed. As a result of that, following Order came to be passed by me. "The learned Advocate Mr. Pitale states that the charge sheet is already filed. In view of this development, the applicant will have to surrender before the concerned JMFC and apply for regular bail. Hence, nothing survives in this application and is disposed of accordingly." The applicant has moved this Court for modification of the said Order dated 30th April, 2008. 3. I have heard learned Advocate on both the sides. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhagat appearing for the applicant as well as learned APP Mr. Yagnik appearing for the State submitted that chargesheet is not filed against the applicant. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhagat therefore submitted that the applicant be given some reasonable time to appear before the concerned Court and till that time the applicant be -3- protected. Learned Advocate Mr. Yagnik for the State opposed the request. 5. It is required to be mentioned that the Order dated 30th April, 2008 came to be passed purely on the ground that a statement was made by the learned Advocate for the applicant that chargesheet is filed. Since this Court is now informed that the chargesheet is not filed, I am of the view that Order dated 30th April, 2008 will have to be revoked and the original Criminal Application No.166 of 2008 will have to be considered by the Court taking up Anticipatory Bail Applications for hearing on merits. In my view, this arrangement would meet the ends of justice. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhagat submitted that some protection be granted to the applicant. In my view, it would not be proper for this Court to pass such an Order. Hence, request is rejected. This Criminal Application is disposed of by passing the following Order: ORDER -4- . Order dated 30th April, 2008 is revoked in the circumstances mentioned aforesaid, namely non filing of the chargesheet. . Criminal Application NO.166 of 2008 is restored. The Criminal Application will have to be taken up for hearing on merits. . Registry to place the application before the concerned Court for hearing. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)