JUDGMENT - JOSHI A.H., J.: - Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of parties and heard. 2. This is State Government's composite application under section 397 read with section 482 of the Cri.P.C. praying for cancellation of order of grant of anticipatory bail which has been granted in favour of present respondents by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 844 of 2003 in Crime No. 147/03 of Police Station, Ambazari, Nagpur. The present respondents have been named as accused persons in the First Information Report lodged by the one Amit Khare who is the complainant. 3. The cancellation of anticipatory bail is sought on two grounds, viz. (1). That, the order granting anticipatory bail is perverse, as well as passed without taking into consideration material on record, and (2). Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not advert to the need of custodial interrogation in the absence of which the very serious crime that was reported, was rendered inappropriately and incompletely investigated. 4. The facts which have led to lodgment of F.I.R. as averred according to the applicant State, could be briefly narrated as follows :- (a) A complaint was lodged by one Amit Khare in the Ambazari Police Station, Nagpur which was registered as Crime No. 147/03 under sections 342, 365, 394 read with section 120-B of the India Penal Code. (b) The 1st respondent is a businessman while 2nd and 3rd respondents are police personnel of Chhaoni Police Station, Bhillai, District Durg (MP), who arrived at Nagpur and called on Ambazari Police Station. A Sana entry was made necessitating help of the local police for effecting arrest of the complainant. (c) According to the complainant, he was arrested by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 at the behest of the 1st respondent, representing that arrest was necessitated in furtherance to Crime No. 344/02 of Chhaoni Police Station, Bhillai (Chhatisgarh State) and the complainant was taken to Ambazari Police Station. The arrest was recorded by way of another Sana entry. (d) The accused then took the complainant in a motor vehicle (Qualis), snatched the golden chain and cash of Rs. 3700/- from the person of complainant and demanded that the complainant should give a call to his father and asked for payment of a sum of Rs. 10 lacs. The arrest was recorded by way of another Sana entry. (d) The accused then took the complainant in a motor vehicle (Qualis), snatched the golden chain and cash of Rs. 3700/- from the person of complainant and demanded that the complainant should give a call to his father and asked for payment of a sum of Rs. 10 lacs. While the complainant was being taken to Bhilai, complainant fell ill and he was taken for treatment to Dr. Mani of Jawaharnagar. (e) According to the State, the representation by the accused that arrest warrant was issued and for its execution help of the local police was taken, all this was done for unauthorisedly arresting the complainant and thereupon committing offence of robbery, extortion demanding ransom etc. 5. Consequent upon registration of crime of Police Station, Ambazari, present respondents submitted application for bail before the Sessions Court, Nagpur which had been registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 488 of 2003 and was made over for hearing to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. The said application was filed on 1-7-2003 and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to pass ad interim anticipatory bail on 2nd July, 2003 on the conditions, namely, that the applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer. 6. The application for bail before the Sessions Court was opposed by the State, as well by placing on record the communication received from the Investigating Officer. The communication received from the Police Officer is on record of the Sessions Court at page 18. In this reply, the Investigating Officer has narrated in detail as to what had revealed as to the manner in which offence was committed and as to how the commission of offence had ex facie emerged. At page 22, the Investigating Officer has specifically recorded that the accused persons had managed to reach the order of anticipatory bail through third person and inspite of oral information given by the Investigation Officer to the accused while they had met in the Court premises that they should call on him in Police Station, they preferred to reach the order of anticipatory bail by hand of third person as aforesaid, and did not contact the police. The accused are thereafter absconding and their presence is necessary to reveal information of two more accused persons who are involved in the offence as well as to recover other related information and to recover stolen articles. 7. Police papers case diary was tendered and placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is seen from record which has been called that copy of Criminal Application No. 2361 of 2002 filed by complainant in the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur is not on record, but the copy of affidavit in reply in the said case filed by A.P.I. Laxman Khobragade of Police Station, Ambazari is on record along with copies of First Information Reports; copies of notices filed on record by the accused/present respondents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who has decided Misc. Cri. Application No. 844/03 has observed while recording arguments of learned A.P.P. opposing the bail that :- In Crime No. 344/02 as well as in Crime No. 776/01 that Amit Khare was not shown to be the accused while on the basis of Sana entry recorded in Ambazari Police Station on the representation by the accused persons/present respondents that they were entitled to arrest Amit Khare. The assistance was sought and Amit Khare was brought upon arrest. The Court's attention was invited to the statement of Dr. Mani, resident of Jawaharnagar that Amit Khare was brought to him by police personnel and Amil Khare in a critical condition and all this evidence were part and parcel of the police record. 8. Upon recording this submission, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to deal with the same and observed that upon perusal of the documents filed on record by the applicants and on specific enquiry with Amit Khare as to whether he had revealed in the criminal application filed by him before the Chhatisgarh High Court (being Criminal Case No. 2361/02) that ransom of Rs. 10 lacs was demanded from his father for relieving him whenever taken to Bhillai, Amit Khare stated that no such grievance was represented. The Court further observed in paragraph 5 of the order as under:- "..... In the case papers the full text of the petition filed by Amit Khare before Hon'ble Chhatisgarh High Court is not available and hence the Court was required to make a query about it to Amit Khare who was present before the Court. The Court further observed in paragraph 5 of the order as under:- "..... In the case papers the full text of the petition filed by Amit Khare before Hon'ble Chhatisgarh High Court is not available and hence the Court was required to make a query about it to Amit Khare who was present before the Court. It does not appear to be probable that complainant Amit Khare who filed a petition before Chhatisgarh High Court with a specific grievance about his illegal and arbitrary arrest on 6-7-2002 by Chhatisgarh police will not even whisper about the brutal beating to him by the police persons and about the demand of ransom by them from his father. It is difficult to accept that being afraid of any further ill action by Chhattisgarh police, Amit Khare might not have made such grievance. When Amit could prefer a petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court and as mentioned earlier when in the petition at the threshold it is his contention that his initial arrest by Chhattisgarh police was illegal and arbitrary, he could have very well made the grievance about beating to him and about the demand of ransom. Not mentioning these facts create a serious doubt about the genuineness of these allegations and the prima facie inference goes to suggest that these allegations may be after thought and concocted." (emphasis supplied). 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further observed in paragraph 6 about Amit having chosen to make grievance to the High Court and the High Court directing him file a complaint. The Court further noted that though the High Court had informed Amit Khare way back in December, 2002 to submit a private complaint, he submitted it only after 3½ months on 17-3-2002 and that no explanation was coming forward for such delay. They learned Additional Sessions Judge ultimately found that- "...... Whether Amit was really taken by Chhattisgarh police along with them on 6-7-02 without any authority is a matter of deep probe and it appears that the said issue is already for consideration before the Chhattisgarh High Court in the criminal case filled by Amit Khare against the said Police Officers. At this juncture it will not be just and proper to make any comment about the conduct of the present applicants in the event on 6-7-2002, but there seems to be no need of the custodial presence of these applicants. At this juncture it will not be just and proper to make any comment about the conduct of the present applicants in the event on 6-7-2002, but there seems to be no need of the custodial presence of these applicants. The applicants have already undertaken to remain present as and when called by the Investigation Officer..." Upon these observations, the learned Judge recorded that he is convinced that no custodial presence of the applicants is necessary and proceeded to allow the application. 10. As referred to in opening paragraph, challenge to the grant of anticipatory bail is on the ground of judgment granting anticipatory bail being perverse and immense necessity of custodial interrogation. 11. Record was called by this Court as well as police papers were called. Learned A.P.P. has, upon instructions, made a statement which is not contradicted by the prosecution to the effect that the entire case diary was placed before the Additional Sessions Judge which consisted of statements of various witnesses. In this background, the learned A.P.P. pressed into service the points, viz. the judgment granting anticipatory bail being perverse, was liable to be reversed. For the ground as to the judgment being perverse and hence liable to be set aside, the reliance is made on (Puran v. Rambilas another)1, 2001(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)830 where in paragraphs 9 and 10, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed--- "9....... One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected." "10. Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation...." 12. Learned A.P.P also relied upon the following judgments :- (1). Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation...." 12. Learned A.P.P also relied upon the following judgments :- (1). (Ramanlal Mohanlal Pandya v. The State of Bombay)2, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 961. (2). (Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan others)3, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 969. (3). (State of Maharashtra v. Anant Chintaman Dighe)4, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 625. (4). (Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. others)5, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 117. (5). (State rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma)6, 1997(7) S.C.C. 187 . (6). (Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala)7, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1699. (7). (Shambhu v. State of M.P.)8, 2002(3) S.C.C. 561 . 13. Though in Puran v. Rambilas anothers (supra), the matter pertained to the offences under sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the factual matrix of the present case is of no lesser gravity. All other judgments relied upon by the prosecution pertain to various matters of the conditions as to when anticipatory bail ought to have been granted and other related matters, and in my view, the judgment in Puran v. Rambilas anothers (supra) governs the issue to be decided in the present lis. 14. Learned Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the following judgments : (1) (State through Delhi Admn v. Sanjay Gandhi)9, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 961. (2) (Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab)10, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632. (3) (Jagannath Bhagoji v. State of Maharashtra)11, 1981 Bom.C.R. 674. (4) (Ajay Kisanlal Soni another v. State of Maharashtra)12, 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 152 . (5) (D. Chandran others v. State A.C.P.)13, 1997 Cri.L.J. 1945. (6) (State of Mah. etc. v. Sanjay others)14, 2000(5) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)877. (7). (Mahant Chand Nath v. State of Haryana)15, 2003 Cri.L.J. 76. 15. The entire crus of the reliance of the learned Counsel for the respondents is on the contention that the present is not a case where custodial interrogation was at all necessary, present one was a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail in view of the judgment in State through Delhi Admn v. Sanjay Gandhi and in Gurbaksh Singh's case (supra). Learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of Ajay Kisanlal Soni another v. State of Maharashtra (supra) decided by this Court, which reliance is wholly misplaced since it was a case where inspite of availing the facility of custodial interrogation, the police could not do it because of pre-occupation on account of law and order problem, and this Court, therefore, directed by way of a dictum to govern such cases where police custody is sought that the Officer in-charge of such investigating should be isolated for the work when PCR is granted in order that the duration of the police custody does not get elongated. In the course of discussion this Court also observed, relying on (Smt Nandini Satpathy v. P. I. Dani and another)16, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1025, that if there is any mode of pressure applied by the police for obtaining information from accused, it becomes compelled testimony' but not otherwise, and in the case where it could be patently shown that substantial investigation has remained to be undertaken, grant of custody to police would be permissible while otherwise it would be abhorred by law. 16. The reliance has been placed by respondents on the judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Mah etc. v. Sanjay others (supra) to assert that petition under section 482 Cri.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for cancellation of anticipatory bail on account of new circumstances, is not maintainable. On the very face of it, this judgement is not applicable to the present case. Reliance has also been placed on D. Chandran others v. State ACP (supra) to the effect where there was failure on the part of prosecution to show at any point of time that accused were required to appear and they did not appear, cancellation of bail on the ground of non-appearance was not proper. This judgment also does not come to the help of the respondents. 17. Upon examining the case with the yard-stick as laid down in Puran v. Rambilas another (supra), it is necessary to find out as to whether the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be regarded as perverse. This judgment also does not come to the help of the respondents. 17. Upon examining the case with the yard-stick as laid down in Puran v. Rambilas another (supra), it is necessary to find out as to whether the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be regarded as perverse. The parameters of judging as to whether any judgment suffers from the defect of being perverse, are different where the enquiry is full-fledged or formal, when by virtue of the nature of the enquiry to be held by the authority is in the nature of summary where the decision to be reached is on the basis of what "prima facie" appears from the papers. When material on record that was liable to be considered on its face value or what appears 'prima facie' is not considered and taken into account in the cases like the present one, would render the judgment perverse. Similarly, non-congruent findings as well would lead the judgment to be perverse. 18. As noted earlier, it has come on record in the form of submission of the Police Officers which is recorded in the judgment, presentation of the case diary, police papers consisting of statements of witnesses including Dr. Mani who has examined the complainant Amit Khare, record in the form of Sana entry where representations were made to the duty Officers of Ambazari Police Station by the accused about requirement of Amit Khare's arrest in crimes referred to by them. In fact, it was substantially shown to the Sessions Court with no ambiguity, rather patently, that further investigation was required to be completed, and in order to reveal the identity of other two persons who were participating in the crime, custodial interrogation was necessary. Undoubtedly, the accused persons are police personnel, occupying the position in neighbouring State and are not freely accessible to the police of Ambazair Police Station, Nagpur. 19. It was also necessary to take into consideration the fact that at present an unhealthy rather discouraging trend is emerging where the policemen by use of their power available under the Criminal Procedure Code with themselves and privilege of help of local police which they seek, they employ the statutory machinery and powers for illegal use. 19. It was also necessary to take into consideration the fact that at present an unhealthy rather discouraging trend is emerging where the policemen by use of their power available under the Criminal Procedure Code with themselves and privilege of help of local police which they seek, they employ the statutory machinery and powers for illegal use. Many such cases have been noticed where the Police Officers from the neighbouring States have entered, sought help of local police on the basis of or in the garb of some crime registered in the concerned State and took away the accused and dealt with them illegally and criminally. Such known incidents which have admittedly occurred as is confirmed by the Counsel for State as well as the respondents. Similar recurrance which now come to the notice of the Court, cannot be brushed aside and the powers of investigation available to the police with the facility of custodial interrogation within the restraints upon them by virtue of law and precedents cannot be denied. 20. The finding and observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that detailed probe and enquiry is necessary itself goes to suggest that much more and substantial investigation has remained to be done. 21. The observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge quoted in paragraph-8 with underlining entertaining a doubt about the complainant's conduct and observations about what was pleaded in the petition before the Chhatisgarh High Court in the absence of entire papers having not been brought before the Court when, accused persons/present respondents had volunteered to file on record copy of affidavit of Shri Khobragade, Police Officer of Ambazari Police Station and not bringing on record other documents, cannot be used as a ground derogatory to the complainant and favourable to the accused persons. There findings and observations do, rather with no ambiguity, reveal a conclusion that the approach adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be regarded and branded as not only perverse, but arbitrary and totally wrong exercise of jurisdiction by him. 22. Present is, therefore, a fit case for cancellation of judgment granting anticipatory bail within the yard-stick laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Puran v. Rambilas another (supra) and, therefore, the application succeeds and by making rule absolute, the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Misc. 22. Present is, therefore, a fit case for cancellation of judgment granting anticipatory bail within the yard-stick laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Puran v. Rambilas another (supra) and, therefore, the application succeeds and by making rule absolute, the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Misc. Criminal Application No. 844 of 2003 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the respondents before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Certified copy expedited. 23. Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to refer that in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to a letter petition addressed by complainant to the learned Senior Judge of Nagpur Bench of this Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge may have, even without being deliberate, however has mentioned at many places in the aforesaid paragraphs the name of the Senior Judge of this Court reference whereof is fully not of context and is regarded by this Court not to withstand the good taste and propriety. This aspect needs to be brought to the notice of the concerned Additional Sessions Judge for notice and observance of a self restraint. Application rejected. -----