VIJAY TTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I am disposing of the application for cancellation of bail. It is stated that anticipatory bail was granted by the learned Sessions Judge Bangalore, Karnakata for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

(2.) Applicant/State by moving the present application desires this court to cancel the bail granted by the court of Bangalore. I am afraid, if such application can be entertained by this court particularly when anticipatory bail was granted by the Bangalore court and therefore, jurisdiction for cancellation of anticipatory bail would vests in that court only. Learned prosecutor states that he does not press this application. What is urged by him is that the petitioner must appear before the investigators as and when desired by them. He states so on the strength of order passed by the Sessions court where such directions were issued to the petitioner to cooperate with the investigators. This being the position, petitioner shall join investigation as and when summoned through formal notice.

(3.) At this stage, learned prosecutor states that whereabouts of the petitioner are not known, therefore, it is not possible for the investigators to serve the notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent states that petitioner's address is given in the memo of parties. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 2nd January, 2008 at 4.00 p.m. Learned counsel for the respondent shall inform the respondent about the time and place for his appearance.