1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1782 of 2008 (Ankush s/o Madhukar Ambhore v. State of Maharashtra) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for Applicant. Shri V.A. Thakre, APP for State. CORAM : A.H. Joshi, J. DATE : 11th June, 2008 1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends arrest furtherance to Crime No.3006 of 2008 under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 2. In support of the application, the following submissions are advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant. (i) That the FIR has been registered in two Police Stations, first in Sakharkherda Police Station and later in Mehkar Police Station, (2) That no cognizance was taken in an offence under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act in view of the bar created by Section 151 of the said Act, as the lodgment of the complaint is not in compliance with the said Section 151, and (3) That as the subject-matter of alleged theft of muddemal 2 property is already recovered, the case does not call for any custodial interrogation. 3. It is seen that the first point urged by the learned Advocate for the applicant has no force, because the place where the offence was registered was within the territorial jurisdiction of Mehkar Police Station and naturally the first FIR lodged on 18-4-2008 would certainly be liable to be acted upon. Lodgment of report in two Police Stations would not nullify the offence. 4. Insofar as the aspect of effect of Section 151 of the said Act is concerned, it refers to taking of cognizance by the Court of competent jurisdiction and manner thereof. Section 151 does not bar the lodgment of the complaint and registration of offence. This argument is, therefore, of no avail to the applicant. 5. As regards the aspect of need of custodial interrogation is concerned, the concept or philosophy that arrest is required only when custodial interrogation is necessary, is fallacious. Section 438 of Cr.P.C. comes to the help of the accused, who wants to evade arrest within the four corners of law. Custodial interrogation is an incidence, which may take place in the event of arrest and so long the accused continues to be in the Police Station with the leave of the law or the Court. 6. In this background, the question is whether the accused has entitled himself for grant of protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. On the facts emerging on record. 7. It is seen that a case is made out against the applicant/accused that he is involved in the commission of crime. There is no circumstance suggesting that the applicant/accused is either falsely implicated. 8. In view of this, the applicant is not entitled to grant of 3 anticipatory bail. 9. The application does not merit any indulgence. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE pdl