1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.4615 of 2006 Appasaheb Manohar Jadhav Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.C.K.Pendse for applicant. Mr.S.S.Tatkar, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. January 11, 2007. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the applicant who has been refused anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge at Pandharpur vide his order dated 20/12/2006 and, therefore, this application for the said relief. . The learned APP has placed before me the investigation papers including the medical certificates of three injured persons i.e. Dayanand Rohidas Savant (complainant), Mahadeo Namdeo Khapale and Vishnu Lalchand Dethe. Having regards to the nature of offence alleged against the applicant and the weapons alleged to have been used in the attack on the injured persons, it is evident that a 2 custodial interrogation of the applicant is required more so when it is stated that the weapons have not yet been recovered. . Hence the learned Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the anticipatory bail application. This application also, therefore, fails and the same is rejected. Needless to mention, as and when the applicant applies for a regular bail the same will have to be decided on its own merits. (B.H