1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.4436/2008 [Purushottam Shivram Phalke and 7 others .vrs. State of Maharashtra] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate with Mr. V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP with Ms. A.S. Palsodkar, Advocate for the non-applicant/State. .......... Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 13 th January, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this application for anticipatory bail, protection was granted to applicant nos.5, 6 and 7 by order dated 18th December, 2008. Thereafter, applicant no.1 was arrested and has also been released on regular bail. Reply filed on behalf of the State by the learned APP shows that the State seeks custodial interrogation of the applicants in order to verify the truthfulness of the complaint regarding the 2 illtreatment to the deceased. The learned APP for the non-applicant/State placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Samunder Singh .vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported at AIR 1987 SC 737 to support his contention that in cases of dowry death, anticipatory bail should not be granted. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that it was neither prudent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court held that therefore it was considered essential to sound a serious note of caution for future, that the High Court is under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature. It may be seen that the Apex Court had not said that the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction in such matter and only said that there is no compulsion to exercise jurisdiction. The question of time is also important. In this case, the husband has also been released on regular bail after anticipatory bail was not 3 granted. In view of this, no useful purpose is going to served by subjecting the applicants to custodial interrogation. Therefore, interim order in respect of applicant nos.5, 6 and 7 passed on 18th December, 2008 is confirmed and is also extended to the applicant nos.2, 3, 4 and 8. The applicant nos.2, 3, 4 and 8 shall appear before Investigating Officer on 19.1.2009 and, thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Hamdast allowed. C.A. No.4437/2008 Filing of copy of FIR is dispensed with. JUDGE Gulande