1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1235 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1665 OF 2007 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1236 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2086 OF 2007 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1237 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2088 OF 2007 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1238 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2087 OF 2007 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1239 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1664 OF 2007 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1240 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2805 OF 2007 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1241 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1666 OF 2007 Shakil Mohammed Ilyas Momin & anr. ..... Applicants. V/s State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. 2 Common appearance in all the above applications:- Mr. M.A. Khan for the applicants. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6TH MAY, 2008 P.C. 1. Mentioned, not on board. 2. All these applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. 3. In all these applications, the applicants seek an order from this Court, recalling the order passed by this Court on 31/03/2008. By the said order, on the application preferred by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, the applications were allowed to be withdrawn and 15 days' time was given to the applicants to surrender before the police and, thereafter, apply for regular bail. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that his advocate on record was not given any instructions to withdraw the applications and the statement which was made by the advocate on record was incorrect. He invited my attention to the affidavits of the applicants annexed to these applications. 3 4. Brief facts in a nutshell are that these applicants had filed these 7 applications for the anticipatory bail in respect of several cases which were registered against them under sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint that the applicants had instigated the public at large and had taken law into their own hands and had thrown stones on the Police Station which was constructed at Bhiwandi and had burnt and damaged the ST Buses which were standing on the road and were also involved in brutally murdering two police constables. 5. After the matter was argued by Mr. Marwadi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, I was about to pass a detailed order, rejecting these applications for anticipatory bail. He, however, submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw these applications. I, however, advised him to take instructions from his clients and the matter was kept on the next date. However, on the next date, he submitted that he had received instructions from his clients to withdraw the applications. He, however, submitted that some time may be given to the applicants to surrender before the police. Accordingly, 15 days' time was given. If the application for withdrawal had not been made, the applications would have been dismissed on merits. 6. Now, since the grievance is made that no such instructions were given to the advocate for withdrawal of the 4 applications and as the earlier applications were already heard on merits, the order of withdrawal is recalled and the applications for anticipatory bail which were filed earlier are rejected on merits. 7. In the present case, the investigation papers which were produced by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Borulkar revealed that the two police constables were brutally murdered. There is enough material to indicate that the present applicants were involved in commission of the offence, apart from murdering the two police constables. There is sufficient material to indicate that these applicants had conspired together to damage the public property and injure and assault policemen who were grievously injured as a result of the attack by the applicants and others on the Police Station. No case is, therefore, made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Applications for anticipatory bail are rejected. Interim order stand vacated forthwith. (V.M. KANADE, J.)