1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.40/2011 (Kishorilal Bhayyalal Kesharwani .vrs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for applicant, Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for non-applicant/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2011 Heard. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 11.2.2011, ad-interim direction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed in favour of the applicant. While giving the said direction, certain conditions were imposed in order to ensure that giving such direction does not hamper the progress of the investigation in the crime concerned. In pursuance to the notice of the said application served upon the other side, the learned APP has tendered the reply. In short, it is the crux of the matter stated in the said reply that the complaint made by the applicant was duly attended by the Lineman on 26.7.2010. It is further contended that during the visit made by the 2 Flying Squad on 16.8.2010 i.e. about a month thereafter, the meter was found to be slow and hence the same was taken into custody under panchanama. It is further contended that during examination of the said meter, the same was found to be tampered and hence the complaint was lodged. The learned APP thus contended that having regard to the same for the purposes of completion of investigation, the custodial interrogation of the applicant will be necessary. The said submissions were repelled by the learned counsel for the applicant by stating that whether the issue of meter was tampered or had become slow due to mechanical fault will be required to be determined after evidence about the same is adduced at trial. It is stated that the applicant had never tampered the meter, the same might have become slow due to the mechanical defect. It is urged that in these circumstances presuming that the applicant has tampered the meter and permitting his custodial interrogation, it will be unnecessary subjecting him to humiliation. It is further urged that the applicant being reputed person of advance age and since would standing trial, his request for grant of anticipatory bail be considered on any condition as fit by the court for the purpose of completion of investigation. Having regard to the aforesaid submission and the allegation of meter being tampered being based only upon the material contained in the report of expert, there appears substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the said issue will 3 be required to be examined at the time of trial at any rate. Having regard to the age of the applicant and the learned APP having not refuted the statement that the applicant had abided the conditions while granting anticipatory direction, the applicant has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail after considering his case in the light of the guidelines regarding such bail given in paragraphs 122 to 125 by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2010 (12) Scale 691. In the aforesaid circumstances, ad-interim direction given vide order dated 11.2.2011 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions with the modification that now the applicant shall attend investigating officer on every Monday in between 2 pm and 5 pm for a period of 15 days and, thereafter, on every Monday until filing of chargesheet. The rest of the conditions imposed by the earlier order stands unmodified. The application stands disposed of. In view of disposal of main application, Criminal Application (APPP) No.116/2011 also stands disposed of. JUDGE Gulande