TANAJI RAMKRISHNA HONKALAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Mundargi placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (K. L. Verma v. State and another), 1998 (9) S. C. C. 348, for substantiating his submissions while Mr. Vakil placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of (Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra), A. I. R. 1996 S. C. 1042 : 1996 (1) S. C. C. 667. A reference was also made by Mr. Mundargi and Mr. Vakil to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab), A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1632 : 1980 (2) S. C. C. 565. Mr. Vakil made reference to the judgment of this Court Single Bench in the matter of Criminal Application No. 289 of 1998.

(2.) THE point which has been agitated by Mr. Mundargi in this matter was that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vermas case (supra) and in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbias case (supra), the applicants are entitled to get the benefit of directions in the nature of anticipatory bail which they were having till today by way of the order which was passed by this Court in the past. Mr. Mundargi submitted that the filing of the charge-sheet against the applicant by the investigating agency does not take away the power and jurisdiction of this Court to hear this application seeking direction in the nature of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the applicants were enjoying the benefit of the directions in the nature of anticipatory bail by virtue of the order of this Court passed in the past before significant days.

(3.) MR. Vakil submitted that if at all this Court is pleased to grant the directions in the nature of anticipatory bail, the said directions be limited to certain period so as to prevent the applicant to enjoy them for unlimited period at the cost of the interest of the prosecution.