CHETAN TAXMAN KHAMBALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION is for anticipatory bail.

(2.) THE circumstances are some what unusual. The applicants were apprehending arrest because after registering F.I.R. at their instance with regard to a dacoity committed by the accused under the garb of entering premises as C.B.I. officer. One of the accused in turn alleges offences punishable under section 307, 324, 326 and 504 of I.P.C. The police machinery finds that the complainant has lodged a false complaint. Accordingly, it does not take any note of the same and leaves it to the complainant to take out appropriate proceedings. Rather, an entry is made that the complaint does not appear to be genuine and bonafide. Be that as it may, the complainant proceeds to file a private complaint. He invokes jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and a direction is issued under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police investigates into the complaint lodged against the applicants and submits a report as above. It appears that the learned Magistrate, thereafter, issues process on 18th April 2006. The process is issued against the applicants and other accused but it is not issued against Accused Nos. 7 to 9.

(3.) MR .Mundargi submits that the Magistrate thereafter remanded the applicants, upon production before him to magisterial custody till 7th June 2006. Mr.Mundargi makes a serious grievance that all this was done in the teeth of an anticipatory bail order and having noticed the same, the learned Magistrate thereafter orders release of applicants.