Tukaram Pralhad Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 4752 OF 2020 Jyotsna D/o Uttamrao Pupalwad & W/o Sainath Ramod ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2021 Mr. Tukaram Pralhad Pawar ... Intervenor In the matter between Jyotsna D/o Uttamrao Pupalwad & W/o Sainath Ramod ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION (ST.)NO. 4434 OF 2020 Satish Bajirao Garvare ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 32 OF 2021 Mr. Tukaram Pralhad Pawar ... Intervenor In the matter between Satish Bajirao Garvare ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION (ST.)NO. 4435 OF 2020 Dadasaheb Govind Waghmode ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1512 OF 2020 Mr. Tukaram Pralhad Pawar ... Intervenor In the matter between Dadasaheb Govind Waghmode ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent -------- Mr. Dujendrakumar Sharma a/w Mr. D.M. Galani for the applicant in ABA St. No. 4752of 2020.

Mr. S.R. Ghanavat i/b V.S. Talkute for the applicant in ABA St. No. 4434/2020 and ABA St. No. 4435/2020.

Ms. Vishakha V. Pandit i/b Avinash H. Fatangare for Intervenors in all ABA's.

Mrs. J.S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent. ______ CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE :5th FEBRUARY 2021 P.C. :

1.

In all these three Applications, the learned APP

has tendered a report of the Investigating Ofcer dated 5/2/2021. It is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.

2.

The learned APP, on specific instructions, makes a statement that the investigating agency does not want to arrest these three applicants. The statement is recorded and accepted.

3.

In view of this statement, the learned Counsel for the applicants do not press these applications. However, they pray that directions may be granted in favour of the applicants, that, in case, in future, if the investigating agency wants to arrest the applicants, in this connection, they should be given atleast of 72 hours notice, so that, they can take proper recourse for protection.

4.

I have considered all these submissions. Request made by learned Counsel for the applicants is

reasonable. The applications are disposed of as not pressed. However, investigating agency is directed to give 72 hours notice of clear working days, in case, in future the investigating agency decides to arrest the applicants concerning the present subject matter. 5.

With these directions applications are disposed of. With disposal of these anticipatory applications, nothing survives in all three interim applications. Hence, interim applications are also disposed of.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)