1. The applicant (original first informant) has lodged complaint with the Police Station Jaulka, District Washim, on 10/01/2012. On the basis of the complaint, the Police Station Jaulka, District Washim has registered Crime No. 3/2012, for offence punishable under Sections 306, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not bother to attend this Court today, nor have they engaged any Advocate to oppose this application.

3. The case of the respondent No. 1-State appears as follows:

Deceased-Nitin had paid Rs. 71,000/- to one Baban Deokate for arranging service for his younger brother but Baban Deokate failed to find job and he had flatly denied to return money to deceased-Nitin. Whenever deceased-Nitin had demanded money to Baban, he as well as his family members used to give threat to deceased-Nitin. To repay the sum taken, Baban Deokate had issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- drawn upon Andhra Bank at Mumbai to the deceased-Nitin, but cheque was dishonoured. Deceased-Nitin had married with Sandhya on 7 March, 2011. Sandhya and her parents used to harass the Nitin and, therefore, being fed up with the harassment on the part of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Baban Deokate, Nitin committed suicide. Nitin had executed two suicide notes indicating that due to criminal conspiracy and harassment on the part of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sandhya having committed theft by hatching conspiracy with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the house of the first informant, Nitin committed suicide.

4. It is grievance of the learned Advocate for the applicant that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein had apprehension of being arrested and, therefore, they had preferred Misc. Criminal Application No. 19/2012 for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. He submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, on 12/01/2012, without issuing notice to the State or Public Prosecutor, granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the respondents No. 2 to 4. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim ignored the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while granting ad-interim anticipatory bail and also while confirming the same, in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim ought to have considered the objections raised before him on behalf of the Investigating Agency as to the nature and gravity of the accusations and alleged role of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the crime pursuant to the averments made in the FIR, the custodial interrogation of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was felt necessary. It was obligatory on the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim to have due regard to provisions as to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be imposed. Appropriate conditions ought to have been incorporated while granting even ad-interim anticipatory bail; without notice to the Public Prosecutor.

5. In view of the 2005 State Amendment applicable in Maharashtra in respect of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is obliged to consider the nature and gravity or seriousness of the accusations; reasonableness of the apprehension of arrest by the applicant, the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he had upon conviction by a Court, previously undergone sentence of imprisonment in respect of any cognizable offence, whether the likely object of the accusation was to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested; and whether there is possibility of the applicant, if granted anticipatory bail to flee from justice. The Court can either reject the interim application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court while considering the issuance of interim anticipatory bail order is required to take care that such application for anticipatory bail shall be finally heard at an early date and if such interim anticipatory bail is granted, it shall be subject to certain conditions which would ensure that accused shall be available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required and that accused shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the evidence in any manner. The accused may be imposed with certain conditions to ensure that investigation can be completed and charge-sheet is laid before the Competent Criminal Court. Under these circumstances an opportunity of being heard to the public prosecutor concerned is sine-qua-non before passing final order in application for anticipatory bail. The Court is required to consider the objections, if any, raised by Investigating Agency or Public Prosecutor concerned before grant or refusal of bail order.

6. Learned Advocate for the applicant took me through the averments made in the FIR and submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were named in the FIR for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim passed an order granting interim anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by its order dated 12/01/2012 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 19 of 2012, which is reproduced as below.

“1. This is an application u/s 438 of Cr. P. C.

2. Perused contents of application, copy of FIR and heard counsel for applicants.

3. On perusal of copy of FIR, it is seen that there are allegations of cheating disclosed by applicants and others and as a result of it deceased committed suicide. Therefore, on report offence vide crime no. 3/12 under sections 306, 420 read with 34 of IPC registered in PS Jaulka. Minute perusal of copy of FIR does not disclose that any custodial interrogation of applicants is necessary. Therefore I find that atleast till return of notices applicants are entitled for protection from arrest hence proceed to pass following order.

ORDER

Application is allowed.

In the event of arrest of applicants 1 to 3 in crime no, 3/12 u/s 306, 420, 34 of IPC of PS Jaulka, each applicant shall be released on ad interim anticipatory bail on executing P. B. of Rs. 20000/- with surety in like amount each till return of notices.

Issue notice to state as to why ad interim anticipatory bail should not be confirmed.

Notice returnable by 21.1.2012

PSO concerned be informed.

Sd/-

Dt. 12.01.2012 (M.R Manthanwar)

Addl. Sessions Judge, Washim”

Perusal of this order would indicate that the learned Public Prosecutor concerned was not at all heard when the above order was passed. The order also does not incorporate any of the precautions and conditions which are to be imposed in view of the Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read along with State amendment in respect of said provisions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim made the notice returnable on 21/1/2012, and on 23/01/2012 he proceeded to pass the following order.

“Ad interim anticipatory bail granted to applicant 1 to 3 vide order 12.1.2012 is confirmed subject to condition that they shall attend P.S Jaulka on every Monday and Wednesday between 5 pm to 9 pm for a period of 3 months or till filing of charge sheet, which ever occurs earlier.

P.S.O concerned be informed.

Sd/-

Dt. 23.01.2012 (M.R Manthanwar)

Addl. Sessions Judge, Washim”

This is how application was finally disposed of. It appears from the above order dated 23/01/2012, that the objections which were raised by the Investigating Agency were not considered at all. Learned APP appearing for respondent-State also submitted that the accusations were serious in nature and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were named in the FIR. The grant of bail was strongly objected by the learned APP on the ground that the applicants-accused applying for anticipatory bail were relatives of the deceased-Nitin and they were insisting upon the first informant (father of the deceased) to withdraw the complaint. It was also submitted on behalf of the Investigating Officer that there is a danger to the life of first informant and his family members from the accused and their relatives as also it is alleged that accused Sandhya had stolen gold ornaments of Rs. 2,50,000/- and her custodial interrogation by the police was very much necessary. Thus, despite these objections including on the ground of necessity of custodial interrogation, ad-interim anticipatory bail was confirmed subject to only condition as to attendance at Jaulka Police Station on every Monday and Wednesday between 5 pm to 9 pm for a period of 3 months or till filing of charge sheet, which ever occurs earlier. While concluding the order dated 23.01.2012, learned Additional Sessions Judge observed thus; “therefore it is difficult to consider whether there was any involvement of applicant no. 1 and applicants no. 2 to 3 for said suicide of deceased. Of course the matter will be decided on merit during trial. But at this stage I do not find that any case is made out by prosecution to refuse relief of protection from arrest. No doubt, complainant had raised opposition that interested persons in applicants are threatening him. In my view if certain conditions are imposed that will overcome the aspect. Hence, proceed to pass following order.” The observations made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim were at the stage when investigation was at its threshold. It must be noted that there cannot be any protection from arrest. To arrest an accused is statutory right of police. When such an order is passed at the nascent stage of investigation, then custodial interrogation would never take place. It is to be remembered that while granting discretionary relief of anticipatory bail necessity as to effective interrogation in police custody be borne in mind, it may have tremendous advantage for the Investigating Agency to collect valuable and material information which otherwise may remain concealed by the accused after accused gets insulated by anticipatory bail order. Sometimes, after conducting custodial interrogation as may be permissible according to law the Investigating Agency can recover incriminating articles or material information which can help the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation by taking it to its logical end by booking the real culprit in the case. For this one may refer to the ruling in the case of State Rep. By The C.B.I v. Anil Sharma reported in (1997) 7 SCC Page 187; hence the discretion in the matter of for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to be used judiciously with care and caution depending upon the facts and circumstances appearing prima facie in each case.

7. For all these reasons, I think that exercise of discretion to grant ad interim anticipatory bail without hearing Public Prosecutor and then to confirm it as has been done in the present case is per se, unjust, wrong and improper exercise of discretion particularly in view of the non-consideration of objections raised by the Investigating Agency for opposing the bail. The order is unsustainable and indefensible as it is based upon irrelevant consideration and perverse. Hence application is allowed. The order dated 23/01/2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim granting anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is cancelled. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who were released on anticipatory bail, be arrested and committed to custody. It is open for the Investigating Officer concerned to apply for appropriate custodial remand of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before the Magistrate concerned. Needless to state that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall, upon expiry of period of custodial interrogation as may be permissible, apply for bail on merits. Application is allowed accordingly.